CRP/2963/2023 of Sri Somaiah Vs Smt. Gangolla Laxmi on 29 December 2023

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

4. Bandeooa,S/o.NarsaiahAgedabout40years,OccAgriculture,AllareR/o'Bichal Village, Doulatabad [Mandal, Vikarabad Districl]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: 123

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 [N][o.296][3or. ][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.JRevision [petitioners ][herein hled ][a ][suit for ][partitron]and separate [possession ][on ][19Lt' ][November' ][2018 ][u'ith]to [properties ][in ][schedule ][A, ][B ][and ][C ][of ][the ][sutt]respect ther'Suit came to be [filed ][by ][revision ][petitioners' ][s'hen]learnt about [the entries o' ]deiendantNo.2(respondent/ [plaintiff ][in ][the ][present ][C ][R P) ][and ][respondent]No.3 in the revenue [records ][and ][as ][such ][called ][t[-re]in suit [No.112 of ][2018 ][for ][amicerble ][partitron ][at]defendapts 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 ][ex-]order [passed ][oo ][O2.Ol ][.2O ][19 and ][to ][permit ][to ][file]parte 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, atrecpest of leanted both counsels for filing [of ][drafi]i-ssue.s. r'n11 on 21 [I ][1.2022".]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, atre'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 oflearned both counsels for heaing, call on22.08.2023".

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

" Perused the record, 1.A.No.168 of 2019 trasallou.,ed on 06.O4.2O21 on [pagment ]of costs ofRs.SOO/- to MLSC paAable on or before Jor26.04.2021 04:0O P.M. Perusal of the record. Hencethe petition was dismissed for nonpagmen o/ costsas for orders in 1.A.No.168 of 2019 for ex-parteeuidence, 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 revtsronpetitioners/ defendants contended that the revisionpetitioners could not comply with the order dated06.O4.2021 (rvherein I.A.No.l68 of 2019 \vas allo$edconditionallv 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 theorder

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiffsubmitted that Courts were functioning during the time ofCovid with standard operating procedure (SOP) in place,being followed. That the revision petitioners have notcomplied 'a,ith the conditional order on the pretext of theCovid pandemicIS cnly a lame excuse to drag theproceedings of the suit. It is further submitted that Courtsfunctioned even during Covid pandemic except for fewmonths w'hen the pandemic was at its peak. That, therevision petitioner(s) having kept quiet for more than 2 /zyears are non, raising frivolous grounds. The CRP is liableto be dismissed for d,:laving the proceedings of suit for aperiod of 2 [t/., ]yea,rs

6. Heard the learn,-d counsels, perused the record andthe docket orders passed on various dates by the JuniorCivil 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']

When this this [[Court ][expressed ]][[expressed ]][[its ][displeasure][ for ][non]][[displeasure][ for ][non]][[ for ][non]][[non]]

7. When this this [[Court ][expressed ]][[expressed ]][[its ][displeasure][ for ][non]][[displeasure][ for ][non]][[ for ][non]][[non]]compliance [of ][a][ simple ][conditiona-; ][order, ][the ][counsel]contended [that ][because ][of ][Covid][ pandemic ][the ][revrsron]'This Court [is ][utterlY]petttlonersu'e re unable [to ][comPlY ]shocked [at]the submissions [made]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,2022exceptduringthepeakCovid [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]submission [can ][only be ][said ][to ][be ][devoid ][of]ingenious merits This Court Court [[was ][not ][inclined ][to ]][[not ][inclined ][to ]][[inclined ][to ]][[to ]][[grant ][any ][relief]][[any ][relief]][[relief]]

g . This Court Court [[was ][not ][inclined ][to ]][[not ][inclined ][to ]][[inclined ][to ]][[to ]][[grant ][any ][relief]][[any ][relief]][[relief]]The [counsel ][appearing ][on ][behalf ][of ][the ][revision]initially. petitioners urged [that ][injustice ][would ][be ][done ][if ][the ][CRP ][is]dismissed and [that ][the ][parties would ][pay ][costs ][if ][any]The [petitior^ers counsel ][has submitted ][that ][the]imposed. revision petitioners [would ][pursue ][the ][matter ][diligently]without seeking [any ][further ][tinre ][tilt ][the ][final ][disposal ][of ttre]suitThe [counsel ][appearing ][on ][behalf ][of ][the ][revision]initially. petitioners urged [that ][injustice ][would ][be ][done ][if ][the ][CRP ][is]dismissed and [that ][the ][parties would ][pay ][costs ][if ][any]The [petitior^ers counsel ][has submitted ][that ][the]imposed. 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 asimple conditional order. The conduct of the revisionpetitioners is far from satisfactory and is a clear case oftactics of delaying the proceedings in the suit. This courthas' no hesitation in holding the revision petitioners guiltyof delaying the suit proceedings.

11. On payment of such costs, I.A.No. 16g of 2019 in OSNo. 105 of 20 l8 shall be restored on the file of Junior CivilJudge, Kodangal. The cosrs of Rs.50,OOO/_ (Rupees FiftyThousands onl,r,) shall be paid by the revision petitioners tothe respondent/plaintiff in suit O.S.No.105 of 2O7g within aperiod of (02) u'eeks from rhe date of receipt of a copy of thisorder and a memo shall be filed to the extent in the Court ofJunior Civil Judge, Kodangal, adducing proof of suchpayment. Needless to sav that if revision petitioners do notcomph' r'ith the order rl,ithin the sai.I period of two weeksfrom the date o[ receipt o[ a copy of this order, I.A.No.16g of20L9 in OS No. 105 of 201 8 shall stand dismissed.

12. For the reasons stated above the CRp is allowedrestoring 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.

| [,.]i,:.,.,.:8,i

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

(

ORDERCRP.No.2963 of 2023

r,.f- [5 ][I;\ ]i [,-]o[$]acf,Plo15 [t'lAR ][2[2[]o,+*,O6-SPATC

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

6 4t'W6{>r