Telangana High Court
Jinka Satyanarayana Died Per Lr ... vs Thokala Bhudevi on 28 April, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2776 AND 2805 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER:
Both the Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of a common order dated 12.11.2019 in I.A.Nos.168 of 2019 and 169 of 2019 in A.S.No.119 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Nirmal. Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of both the CRP Nos.2776 of 2019 and 2805 of 2019 together as under.
2. CRP No.2776 of 2019 is filed assailing the orders in I.A.No.169 of 2019 in A.S.No.119 of 2018 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') to stay execution in EP No.31 of 2018 in O.S.No.61 of 2007 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge at Nirmal. Whereas, CRP No.2805 of 2019 is filed against the orders in I.A.No.168 of 2019 in A.S.No.119 of 2018, filed to condone the delay of 399 days under Section 148 read with 151 of CPC in compliance the orders in I.A.No.286 of 2018 dated 24.07.2018.
3. Heard both sides. The submissions made on both sides have received due consideration of this Court. Page 2 of 6 AVR,J
CRPs_2776 & 2805_2019
4. The plaintiff in O.S.No.61 of 2007 has filed original suit for eviction, realization of arrears of rents and damages from the defendants in respect of the suit house bearing No.1-2-36, situated at Nirmal, Adilabad District. The trial Court has decreed the suit with costs directing the defendants to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule house to the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of judgment and decree and that the plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs.12,600/- from defendants towards arrears of rents and the plaintiff shall also file a separate application to determine the mesne profits.
5. The defendants, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.61 of 2007 have preferred the appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2018. In A.S.No.16 of 2018, the defendants have filed an application in I.A.No.286 of 2018 under Order 41, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC praying the appellate Court to stay execution of judgment and decree dated 03.04.2018 in O.S.No.61 of 2007 till disposal of the appeal. The learned First Appellate Court Judge, as per orders dated 24.07.2018 in I.A.No.286 of 2018 allowed the said application and ordered the stay operation Page 3 of 6 AVR,J CRPs_2776 & 2805_2019 of judgment and decree dated 03.04.2018 in O.S.No.61 of 2007 subject to the condition that the appellants/defendants depositing an amount of Rs.12,600/- towards arrears of rents from December, 2006 to May, 2007 and a sum of Rs.2,79,300/- being security at the rate of Rs.2,100/- per month from June, 2007 to June, 2018 and a sum of Rs.2,100/- per month commencing from the month of July, 2018 till disposal of the appeal and Rs.4,804/- towards costs of the suit. This amount was directed to be deposited within one month from the date of orders i.e. 28.07.2018 in I.A.No.286 of 2018.
6. The chronology of the events is narrated as follows for better understanding. The suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.61 of 2007 was decreed on 03.04.2018 for eviction of the defendants. The defendants have filed A.S.No.16 of 2018 assailing the said judgment and decree and thereafter, they have filed the stay petition in I.A.No.286 of 2018 under Order XLI, Rule 5 of CPC, that application was allowed conditionally as stated above, as per the orders dated 24.07.2018. The defendants have failed to comply the conditions mentioned in I.A.No.286 of 2018 and failed to deposit the amount till 26.09.2018 in spite of enlargement of Page 4 of 6 AVR,J CRPs_2776 & 2805_2019 time and filed CRP No.1768 of 2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter, the present application is filed. It shows that the petitioners/defendants have been playing tricks and managing that the warrant for delivery of possession in E.P.No.31 of 2018, filed for execution of decree in O.S.No.61 of 2007 is not executed.
7. The defendants have stated that there is a delay of 399 days. In this context I may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Mg.Commit. of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others1 wherein the Apex Court has summarized the principles and obligations of the Court while dealing with the application for condonation of delay and approach to be adopted. One such principle is that there is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party 1 2013(12) SCC 649 Page 5 of 6 AVR,J CRPs_2776 & 2805_2019 relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. The Apex Court further held that the increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and has requires to be curbed of-course within legal parameters.
8. When the facts of the case on hand, as narrated above, are tested on the touch stone of the principle laid by the Apex court in the above decision, the answer is in negative. The petitioners are not entitled for dondonation of delay of 399 days for compliance of the conditions that are imposed in I.A.No.286 of 2018, as per orders dated 24.07.2018. The conduct of the petitioners in filing the application for stay, non-compliance of the conditions, filing of the CRP before this Court, getting it dismissed as withdrawn, filing of application before the trial Court to condone the delay of 399 days speaks volumes about their attitude. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in dismissing the application filed in I.A.No.168 of 2019. Since the application to codone the Page 6 of 6 AVR,J CRPs_2776 & 2805_2019 delay, filed in I.A.No.168 of 2019 is dismissed, I do not find any merit in the application filed in I.A.No.169 of 2019 filed under Section 151 of CPC to stay execution of E.P.No.31 of 2018 in O.S.No.61 of 2007.
9. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petition Nos.2776 of 2019 and 2805 of 2019 are hereby dismissed confirming the orders in I.A.No.168 of 2019 and 169 of 2019 dated 12.11.2019 in A.S.No.119 of 2018 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Nirmal. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, in these CRPs, shall stand closed.
________________________________ A.VENKATESWHARA REDDY, J 28-04-2022 abb