HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.334 OF 2026 DATE:17.03.2026 Between M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office: Door No.6-3-871, Snehalatha, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

…Petitioner And M/s. Lancorani JV, R/o.203, Navaketan, S.D. Road, Secunderabad and Three Others.

…Respondents Mr.L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Bhaskar Poluri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr. S. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 30.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.1130 of 2024 in COP No.41 of 2017 by the Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad (‘Trial Court’), dismissing the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order IX Rule 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for setting aside the order dated 01.12.2023, by which the COP No.41 of 2017 filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution. In I.A.No.1130 of 2024, the petitioner also prayed for restoration of the COP and permission to contest the case. The said application was filed along with an application filed under section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 (‘1963 Act’) for condonation of 337 days delay in filing the same.

2. The Trial Court dismissed the said application, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner had not made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 337 days in filing I.A.No.1130 of 2024.

3. We have heard the competing submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Trial Court failed to take into account the reasons for the delay in filing the application (IA No.1130 of 2024) for setting aside the order dated 01.12.2023 which dismissed the petitioner’s COP. Counsel submits that the hospitalization and subsequent demise of the father, and marriage of the son of the petitioner’s Advocate on Record constitute sufficient grounds for condoning the delay of 337 days.

5. It is also submitted that a Clerk working at the Office of the petitioner’s Advocate on Record, misplaced the bundle of papers relating to an earlier restoration petition (I.A. SR No.6578 of 2023) which had been returned with certain Office Objections and handed over to the Clerk. The petitioner was hence, not notified of the return of the bundle. It is further submitted that the delay in resubmitting the restoration application was neither willful nor deliberate but had been occasioned due to the aforesaid inadvertent circumstances.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the respondent No.1 is the beneficiary of an Award dated 16.09.2016 passed by an Arbitral Tribunal for a sum of Rs.2,53,49,012/-. It is submitted that the petitioner filed COP No.41 of 2017 under section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the Award dated 16.09.2016. The petitioner thereafter, showed a lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter on multiple occasions resulting in the respondent No.1 being deprived of the fruits of the Award for a decade.

7. The admitted facts leading to the impugned order are as follows:

8. The Award was passed in favour of the respondent No.1 on 16.09.2016 for Rs.2,53,49,012/-. The petitioner filed for setting aside of the Award vide COP No.41 of 2017 on 31.01.2017. COP No.41 of 2017 was dismissed for default on 26.12.2019 and was subsequently restored to file on an application filed by the petitioner. COP No.41 of 2017 was again dismissed for default on 01.12.2023. The petitioner thereafter filed I.A.No.1130 of 2024 to restore COP No.41 of 2017 and an application therewith seeking condonation of the delay of 337 days in filing the restoration application.