Sri Somaiah v. Smt. Gangolla Laxmi

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY. THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2963 OF 2023 Petition under Arlide 227 of the constitution of lndia set aside by the order oarex{ irca'iiozi in t. a. No. 168 0f 2019 in os No.1o5 0f 2018 0n the fite of rhe Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal.

Between:

1. Sri Somaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 45 years' Occ Agriculture, Rl/o' Bichal Village, Doulatabad Mandal, Vikarabad District

2. Smt. Narsinqamma, W/o. Somaiah Aged about 43 years, Occ Agriculture, Ryo. Bichal Mllage, Doulatabad Mandal, Vikarabad District

3. Ananthaiah, S/o. Narsaiah Aged about 50 years' Occ Agriculture, Rl/o Bichal Village, Doulatabad Mandal, Vikarabad District 4.Bandeooa,S/o.NarsaiahAgedabout40years,OccAgriculture,AllareR/o' Bichal Village, Doulatabad Mandal, Vikarabad Districl

...Petitioners

AND Smt. Gangolla Laxmi, Wo. Ramulu, Aged about 4s-yea.rs, Occ Agriculture Rl/o. Bichdl Village, Doulatabad Mandal Vikarabad District ...RespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: 1 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of the OS No. 105 of 2018 and also the Orders dated 22tOBl2O23 in I.A.No.168 of 2019 in OS No.105 of 2018 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal pending disposal of the CRP and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri G Narender Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Ravindar Naik K The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CtvIL REVISION PETITION No.2963or. 2023

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction to set aside the Orders dated 22.08.2023 in I.A.No.168 of 20 l9 in O.S.No. 105 of 2018 passed by learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal and permit the petitioners to pay costs of Rs.500/ and contest the suit.

2.

Learned counsel Shri G.Narender Reddy representing revision petitioners/ defendants and learned counsel Shri Ravinder Naik lor respondent/plaintiff.

3.

BrieI facts:

Respondent/ plaintiff instituted a suit for perpetual injunction o r-r the ground that on 10.08.2018 at about I I :0O A.M u hen respondent/plaintiff was clearing the land for the next crop, the revision petitioners/defendants came to the suit land and tried to dispossess the respondent/ plaintiff and hence, the suit. Along rn'ith the said suit. an apptication was filed to grant an interim

injunction against the revision petitioners dispenstng urgent notlce.

3.2. Petition schedule property is land bearing Survey No.103/A dry Acres 9.10 gts' situated at Bichal Viilage' Dowlathabad Mandal, Vikarabad District' A counter affidavit was filed by revision petitic'ners stating that the suit was instituted by not disclosing the real facts of the origin of suit properties and the relationship betu'een the revision petitioners and respondent,/ plaintiff and also by not describing and not disclosing the joint rights of revision petitioners and respondent/ plaintiff along n ith other family members. The suit was filed in the mr'nth of August' 2O 18' J.J Revision petitioners herein hled a suit for partitron and separate possession on 19Lt' November' 2018 u'ith respect to properties in schedule A, B and C of the sutt Suit came to be filed by revision petitioners' s'hen ther'

learnt about the entries o'

deiendant No.2 (respondent/ plaintiff in the present C R P) and respondent No.3 in the revenue records and as such called t[-re defendapts in suit No.112 of 2018 for amicerble partitron at

Bichal village in the month of June, 2O18' The plaintiff in suit called for a panchayath, but, it was in vain and as such the cause of action arose for the suit'

3.4. Interlocutory application No' 168 of 2Ol9 came to be filed by revision petitioners/ defendants in suit'

OS No.1O5 of 20 18 seeking a direction to set aside the exparte order passed oo O2.Ol .2O 19 and to permit to file written statement so a'i to proceed with the case' 3.5. By docket order dated 06.O4.2O2L, Junior Civil Judge, Kodangat, passed the following order:

"Both panie: are called absent, 1.A.No.168 of 2o19 ttai conditionallg alloued on pagment of crrsf-s ry' Rs.SOO/ - to Mandal Legol Seruices cornrnittie to be paid on or before 22.O4.2O21 and tlle Drcttter u)as posted to O6.05.2021 .

By docket order ilated 19.1O.2022, Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, passed the lbllowing order:

'' tsoth Parties ore called absent, at recpest of leanted both counsels for filing of drafi i-ssue.s. r'n11 on 21 I 1.2022".

Bv docket order dated 24.11-2022, Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, passed the following order:

"Both partie:; 4re called- absent, at re'qucsl of leantecl courtsels for heaing o/ issues, <'cL on 20.04 2023".

By docket order dated 20.04.2023 in I.A.No.168 of 20 19 in OS No.1O5 of 2018 Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, passed the following order:

"Both parties are called absent, at request of learned both counsels for heaing, call on 22.08.2023".

By docket order dated 22.O8.2023, Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, passed the following order:

" Perused the record, 1.A.No.168 of 2019 tras allou.,ed on 06.O4.2O21 on pagment of costs of Rs.SOO/- to MLSC paAable on or before Jor 26.04.2021 04:0O P.M. Perusal of the record. Hence the petition was dismissed for nonpagmen o/ costs as for orders in 1.A.No.168 of 2019 for ex-parte euidence, coll on 18.09.2023 and the matter"- 3.6. Challenging the order dated 22.08.2023, prcsent CRP is filed.

4.

Learned counsel representing the revtsron petitioners/ defendants contended that the revision petitioners could not comply with the order dated 06.O4.2021 (rvherein I.A.No.l68 of 2019 \vas allo$ed conditionallv on payment of Rs.50O/ - to MLSC to be paid on tlle on or before 22.04.2021l. due to Covid pandemic But, lor the pandemic revision petitioners/ defendan ts

would have paid the amounts to MLSC, and complied the order 5.

Learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submitted that Courts were functioning during the time of Covid with standard operating procedure (SOP) in place, being followed. That the revision petitioners have not complied 'a,ith the conditional order on the pretext of the Covid pandemic IS cnly a lame excuse to drag the proceedings of the suit. It is further submitted that Courts functioned even during Covid pandemic except for few months w'hen the pandemic was at its peak. That, the revision petitioner(s) having kept quiet for more than 2 /z years are non, raising frivolous grounds. The CRP is liable to be dismissed for d,:laving the proceedings of suit for a period of 2 t/., yea,rs 6.

Heard the learn,-d counsels, perused the record and the docket orders passed on various dates by the Junior Civil Judge. Kodangal. Suit filed is of the year 201g, aI.A.No.168 of 20 i9 in OS No. t05 of 201g has been filed on

24.Ol.2olg. Conditiona-l order was passed allowing I.A.No.168 of 2Ol9 on payment of costs of Rs'500/- to MLSC on or belore 22 'O4 '2021, the revision petitioners did not comply u'ith the order for a period of 2 lz years which is a fact borne bY record'

7.

When this Court expressed its displeasure for non compliance of a simple conditiona-; order, the counsel contended that because of Covid pandemic the revrsron This Court is utterlY petttloners u'e re unable to comPlY '

the submissions made shocked at by the counsel for revision petitioners/ plaintiffs' No reasonable person would believe the version of the revision petitioners' Covid pandemic came to an end way back in 2022' even from March.2O2OtlllJanuary,2022exceptduringthepeak Covid pandemic periods Courts were functioning by strictl!' observing the standard operatillg prt)cedure prescribed br' tl-re Registry. of State High Court' It is a fact borne bv record that a number of Courts in the entire countrr fr-rnctioned dispcnsing justice during the period of Covid'

8.

The non compliance by revision petitioners is an act of willful disobediencc of the simple conditional order of Court only with ar'I intention to prolong the suit proceedings. Such an act of non compliance and the ingenious submission can only be said to be devoid of merits g .

This Court was not inclined to grant any relief initially. The counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners urged that injustice would be done if the CRP is dismissed and that the parties would pay costs if any imposed. The petitior^ers counsel has submitted that the revision petitioners would pursue the matter diligently without seeking any further tinre tilt the final disposal of ttre suit

10. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that a costs o[ Rs.5O,O00/- u'ould suffice, taking into account the lact that the ottrer party in the suit has suffered for the lapses, omissions and delaying tactics adopted to protract the litigation b-r'the revision petitioners

for a period of 2 % years, that too. for compliance of a simple conditional order. The conduct of the revision petitioners is far from satisfactory and is a clear case of tactics of delaying the proceedings in the suit. This court has' no hesitation in holding the revision petitioners guilty of delaying the suit proceedings.

11. On payment of such costs, I.A.No. 16g of 2019 in OS No. 105 of 20 l8 shall be restored on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal. The cosrs of Rs.50,OOO/_ (Rupees Fifty Thousands onl,r,) shall be paid by the revision petitioners to the respondent/plaintiff in suit O.S.No.105 of 2O7g within a period of (02) u'eeks from rhe date of receipt of a copy of this order and a memo shall be filed to the extent in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, adducing proof of such payment. Needless to sav that if revision petitioners do not comph' r'ith the order rl,ithin the sai.I period of two weeks :

;

I from the date o[ receipt o[ a copy of this order, I.A.No.16g of 20L9 in OS No. 105 of 201 8 shall stand dismissed. i

12. For the reasons stated above the CRp is allowed restoring I.A.No. 168 of 2Ol9 in OS No.1O5 of 2olg on the

file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, if and only if the costs are paid within a pericd of two (02) weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Non compliance would invite the consequences as stated above.

Sd/- Mohd. Sanaulla Ansari ASSISTANT REGISTRAR J ril,*i : i .:4:

.'j'it'

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal One CC to Sri G Narender Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI One CC to Sri Ravindar Naik K, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies .iji.

:.- ADI(BPw'

| ,.

i,:.

,.,.:8,i

HIGH COURT ( DATED: 2911212023 r,.f- 5 I;\ i ,- o$ a c f,lo P o 15 t'lAR 2[2[ ,+ ,

ORDER

* CRP.No.2963 of 2023 O6-SPATC ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 6 4t'

W 6{>r