HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2756 of 2022 Date: 13.02.2026 Between :

Y. Sudhakar and another …. Petitioners AND Mr. Leslie Gomez and others ….Respondents

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2022 (for short “the impugned order”) passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in I.A. No.1488 of 2019 in I.A.No.682 of 2016 in O.S. No.99 of 2012. By the Impugned Order, the Trial Court dismissed the petitioners’ application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 53 days in filing the restoration petition in I.A.No.682 of 2016.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual backdrop giving rise to the present revision is as follows:

The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.99 of 2012 against the defendants seeking declaration of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.1650/2011 and 1651/2011 as null and void. In view of non-filing of the written statement by the defendants, they were set exparte, thereafter, the plaintiffs obtained exparte decree in the said suit on 12.11.2014. Thereafter, the defendants filed the petition vide I.A.No.682/2016, invoking the provisions under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the exparte decree. Though the plaintiffs entered their appearance, they failed to file a counter and consequently, the right of the plaintiffs to file their counter was forfeited. However, the said petition was dismissed for default as their counsel could not represent the case on 15.04.2019. Aggrieved thereby the defendant, filed I.A.No.1488 of 2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the petition to restore I.A.No.682/2016. The said application having been dismissed vide the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have approached this Court in the present Revision.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of petitioners/defendants:

4. The learned counsel for the defendants contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is in violation of against the principles of natural justice and that grave prejudice would be caused to the defendants if they are denied the opportunity to contest the suit on merits, by setting aside the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.99 of 2012. It was further contended that the Trial Court failed to consider that the defendant No.1 was bed-ridden for six months, as such, the delay occurred in filing restoration petition. It was argued that the Trial Court while passing the impugned order heard the petition in I.A.No.682 of 2016 and posted the same for orders on 21.10.2017, however, the said petition was finally dismissed on 15.04.2019 for non-prosecution. It was further submitted that since the plaintiffs did not file counter in I.A.No.1488 of 2019; the same would make it clear that the plaintiffs have no interest to contest I.A.No.1488/2019 and no prejudice would be caused to them if the delay is condoned and the restoration petition is allowed.

b) Submissions on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents:

5. It was the specific contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay and the petitioners’ explanation for delay lacks bonafides and credibility. The learned counsel further urged that mere non filing of counter by them is not a ground to set aside the impugned order, as the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order in accordance with law. It was the specific contention of the plaintiffs that the learned Trial Court after considering all the relevant factors had rightly dismissed the petition filed by the defendants and there are no grounds to interfere with the imp