Telangana High Court
Bommathi Laxminarayana vs Md.Ghouse on 8 August, 2022
Author: G.Sri Devi
Bench: G.Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CIVIL REVISION PTITION No. 1317 of 2022
ORDER:
In this revision, the petitioners, plaintiffs, challenge the orders, dated 10.11.2021 made in I.A. No. 220 of 2020 in Unregistered A.S. on the file of the Principal District Judge at Warangal. By the impugned order, the learned Principal District Judge allowed I.A. No. 220 of 2020 filed by the defendants, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein under Order 41 Rule 3A of C.P.C. seeking to condone the delay of 757 days in preferring the appeal.
The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, revision petitioners have instituted a suit being O.S. No. 195 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal against the defendants, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein seeking the relief of declaration of title and for consequential injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. On decreeing the suit on 19.12.2017, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, preferred the Unregistered A.S. before the Principal District Judge. Since there was delay in preferring the appeal, they have filed I.A. No. 220 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay of 757 days in preferring the appeal. On contest, the Principal District Judge allowed the I.A. by the 2 impugned order. Hence, the plaintiffs before this Court by way of present revision.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the lower appellate Court did not examine the aspect whether the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein have explained the day-to-day delay cogently by convincing reasons. The lower appellate Court ought not to have allowed such an inordinate delay of 757 days on a self-serving bald statement without there being any satisfactory reasons explained by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein. It is contended that only after initiating the execution proceedings in E.P. No. 3 of 2020 by the plaintiffs, petitioners herein, seeking arrest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for violation of the orders of perpetual injunction granted in the suit, they have filed the appeal with the impugned application seeking condonation of delay.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the lower appellate Court having satisfied with the reasons explained by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the delay in filing the appeal, has rightly condoned the delay which needs no interference by this Court. 3
Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction was decreed in their favour on 19.12.2017. After lapse of more than two years, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein have approached the lower appellate Court by way of appeal along with the impugned application seeking condonation of delay of 757 days. The reasons mentioned by them for such an inordinate delay was that they went to distant place for their livelihood as they are in the business of selling mutton of sheep. The further plea taken by them is that their mother was seriously ill, hospitalized and had paralysis stroke. Except the self-serving statement, they did not produce any documentary evidence before the Court below to substantiate their claim. The record also discloses that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of Hanamkonda only. When the revision petitioners took a stand that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were very much available within the City and they did not left the place as alleged by them, the lower appellate Court wrongly shifted the burden on them holding that they did not place any material to show that the petitioners are very much present in the city 4 only and they did not lead any evidence. It is for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to prove their stand by adducing cogent evidence but not on the part of the revision petitioners. It is only when the plaintiffs, revision petitioners initiated the execution proceedings and sought for police aid by filing E.A., the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have approached the lower appellate Court by way of appeal. This conduct of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 itself speaks a lot. The Apex Court in the case of Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam1, has held that "The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same."
For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the orders dated 10.11.2021 passed by the Principal District Judge at Warangal. Consequently, I.A. No. 220 of 2020 shall stand dismissed. No costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 08-08-2022 tsr 1 2022(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 319 5 HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI CIVIL REVISION PETTION No. 1317 of 2022 DATE: 08-08-2022