Sri. V.Srinivasulu, v. Late P.S.Chandrashekar

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2994 OF 2016 ORDER:

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad in I.A. No.3484 of 2015 in O.S. No.166 of 2013 dated 21.03.2016. The respondent herein is the wife of the deceased-defendant in O.S. No.166 of 2013. She filed I.A. No.3484 of 2015 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 473 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte dated 05.03.2014. In the order under revision, the Court below noted the contention of the respondent herein that her husband died on 15.02.

2014; later her son died, and subsequent to that her mother also died; because of such calamities in her family, she was upset due to financial worries and difficulties; in such state of affairs she did not have knowledge about the present proceedings in respect of the house property left behind by her husband; it is only thereafter, on receiving notice in E.P.S.R. No.11561 of 2014, that she came to know about the ex-parte decree passed against her husband; she engaged the services of her advocate, even to the extent of executing a GPA in his favour; and, in such a situation, she got prepared the present petition, and had got it filed with a delay of 473 days.

The Court below observed that, in the above background, there appeared to be substantial force in the contention of the appellant that she came to know about the ex parte decree only after she received notice in EPSR No.

against her deceased husband; and simply on the ground that the deceased husband of the applicant was shown as a party in the cause list, it was not a ground to dismiss the petition.

The Court below further observed that, even after the death of the party to the suit proceedings, it was just and necessary to continue such name with the status as deceased and implead the legal representatives of the petitioner, representing her husband, to file the present petition to bring the proceedings on track; and the applicant had established substantial grounds to condone the delay of 473 days in filing the accompanying petition.

The fact that the respondent's husband died on 15.02.2014, and her son and mother both died soon thereafter is not in dispute. The tragic circumstances in which the respondent-applicant found herself in, on the death of her husband, son and mother, justified the Court below taking a lenient view in condoning the delay of 473 days in filing the application. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate and, save patent illegality in the order under revision or substantial injustice being caused to the petitioner, no interference is called for. The discretion exercised by the Court below, to condone the delay of 473 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte, does not suffer from any such infirmity. The petitioner cannot be said to have suffered substantial injustice as he is now required only to contest the suit on its merits. He cannot claim to have suffered prejudice and thereby take advantage of an ex parte decree passed in his favour.

I see no reason, therefore, to exercise discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order under revision. The revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 01.07.2016.

MRKR