##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2629 of 2022

Date: 06.05.2026

Between:

Voilla Laxmaiah …. Petitioner

AND

Voilla Muthyala …. Respondent

ORDER

Heard Sri P.S.V.Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, Sri K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel

representing Sri V.S.R.Avadhani, the learned counsel on record

appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on

the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner

aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as

“the impugned order”) passed by the learned Principal District

Judge, Nalgonda in I.A No 368 of 2022 in UR AS SR No.1008 of

2022. By the impugned order, the Court dismissed the application

filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act r/w.

Section 151 of the C.P.C seeking the condonation of delay of 561

days in filling the appeal against the judgement and decree dated

-2-

VRKR, J

CRP_2629_2022

17.08.2018 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Devarakonda in O.S. No.29 of 2012

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred

to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

4. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

(a) The case originates from O.S.No.29 of 2012 filed by the

plaintiff/respondent seeking specific performance of an agreement

of sale dated 25.08.1990 with regard to land admeasuring Ac.1-20

guntas in Sy.No.285 situated at Namapuram Village. The above

said suit was decreed on 17.08.2018 in favour of plaintiff.

Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent filed E.P.No.3 of 2019 before

the Executing Court for executing the decree. The

defendant/petitioner received notice in the said execution petition

and appeared before the Executing Court. After contesting the

execution petition, the Court by order dated 09.05.2022, directed

the defendant/petitioner to execute sale deed in favour of the

plaintiff/respondent.

(b) The defendant/petitioner filed an appeal UR AS SR No.1008

of 2022 along with IA No.368 of 2022 on 15.03.2022 before the

learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda seeking condonation of

-3-

VRKR, J

CRP_2629_2022

delay of 561 days [excluding 716 days from 15.03.2020 to

28.02.2022 in view of the order dated 10.01.2022 of the

Honourable Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 in

Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil)

No.3 of 2020] in filing the said appeal. The Court dismissed the

said petition by the order dated 13.09.2022, on the ground that no

sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. Aggrieved by

the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioner/defendant:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

appellate Court passed the impugned order without assigning

cogent reasons and has mechanically dismissed the interlocutory

application filed by the Petitioner.

6. It is further contended that after the petitioner gave his

evidence in the suit, his counsel before the learned Trial Court

assured him that he would take care of the further suit

proceedings. It is further contended that owing to petitioner’s

advanced age and illiteracy, he was unable to effectively pursue the

matter thereafter. Additionally, it is submitted that the petitioner’s

son passed away during the COVID-19 period, causing

considerable hardship to the petitioner.

-4-

VRKR, J

CRP_2629_2022

7. It is further contended that apart from the sufficient cause

shown for the delay, the appellate court ought to have condoned

the delay by duly considering the grounds raised in the appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court

failed to consider the ratio laid down in Ram Prakash v. Mani Ram1

and erred in not adverting to or interpreting the said decision.

8. It is also submitted that the appellate Court erred in

observing that