Smt. K. Annapurna v. Sri. Mohd Sadiq

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2411 OF 2017 ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, questioning the order, dated 07.02.2017, in I.A.No.1221 of 2016 in U/R Appeal Suit (A.S.No.9 of 2017) on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nizamabad, whereby and whereunder the delay of 1269 days in preferring the appeal challenging the judgment and decree, dated 19.12.2012, in O.S.No.78 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, was condoned on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Nizamabad, on or before 15.02.2017.

Sri D.Raghavulu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would point out the observations made by the Court below in paragraph '8', which read thus:

"Though, the explanation of petitioner to condone the delay of (1269) days is not sufficient, it can be presumed from the sworn statement of petitioner that he was suffering from some ailment. The suit is for recovery of money. The parties have been fighting the litigation seriously since 2007. The petitioner should have been cautious and careful in pursuing the matter. In the above background of facts and in order to decide the appeal on merits, keeping in view of the principles reiterated and the conditions laid down in the above said two decisions, the explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of the delay must be accepted. The point is accordingly answered."

Basing on the said observations, it is his submission that the Court below initially opined that there was no sufficient cause to condone the

ASN,J CRP.No.2411_17 delay, but still, somehow, allowed the petition and, thus, the order under challenge suffers from patent illegality and sought to set aside the same. However, when it is pointed out that latter portion of paragraph '8' of the order under challenge would indicate that such opinion was arrived at basing on the ratio laid down in the decisions referred to in the earlier paragraphs of the order, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would make a request to fix time for disposal of the appeal itself, since the lis is for recovery of money.

It is no doubt true, the revision petition relates to the first appeal of the current year, but, however, keeping in view, the fact that there has been delay of 1269 days in preferring the appeal, which was condoned, indicating that the judgment under challenge in the appeal was passed three years prior to filing of the appeal, direction as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner can be given and, accordingly, the learned Principal District Judge, Nizamabad, is directed to dispose of A.S.No.9 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the revision stand closed.

___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J June 07, 2017 v v