THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4707 & 4697 of 2025

13^TH MARCH, 2026 Between:

Namireddy Matta Reddy Represented by GPA Holder Namireddy Sugunamma … Petitioner AND Giri Iddaiah (died)

Rep. by his legal representative Giri Laxmaiah …Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed seeking to revise the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.286 and 287 of 2024 respectively in O.S.No.176 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda (for short ‘trial Court’).

2. Heard M/s.Palli Alexander, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of respondent. Perused the record.

3. Since the parties are one and the same in both the cases, these petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed I.A. No.286 of 2024 under section 5 of Limitation Act read with section 151 of CPC seeking to set aside the decree dated 14.06.2022 by condoning delay of 866 days i.e. from 14.07.2022 to

26.11.2024 and filed I.A.No.286 of 2024 under Order IX Rule 13 read with section 151 of CPC seeking to set aside the decree dated 14.06.2022. However, the trial Court allowed both the applications by imposing cost of Rs.3,000/- in each application payable to the respondent/plaintiff.

5. He further submitted that the trial Court ought not have allowed the petitions filed by the respondent, as the petition of condone delay is barred by limitation as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Further the respondent categorically admitted that he had received the notices but failed to appear before the Court and there is no day to day explanation of inordinate delay. The trial Court has not gone through the pleadings of the parties nor appreciated the conduct of the respondent while passing the impugned order which results in grave injustice, as the same is against the settled principles of law. Hence prays to allow the civil revision petitions.

6. The Trial Court, while allowing the applications, observed that subsequent to the decree, dated 14.06.2022, the respondent filed I.A. No. 148 of 2024 seeking amendment of the plaint, specifically to alter the boundaries of the suit schedule property, thereby impacting the decree. Upon receipt of notice of the said amendment application, the petitioner filed the present application for condonation of delay, along with an application under Order IX Rule

13 CPC to set aside the decree. Though the delay, as stated, amounts to 866 days and is undoubtedly inordinate, the facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the respondent’s application for amendment of the plaint, affecting the boundaries of the suit schedule property and consequently the decree, necessitates affording the petitioner an opportunity to contest the same. Denial of such opportunity would result in serious prejudice to the petitioner.

7. This Court, upon perusal of the said order opines that the order passed by the trial Court is flaw less and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 13.03.2026 BV