Telangana High Court
CRP/5896/2009 of Velide Chakradhar Vs P.Ram Reddy on 31 December 2009
R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5896 of 2009 Date: December 31, 2009 Between: Velide Chakradhar, S/o. Sambaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12-8-298, Sai Nagar Colony, Hunter Road, Warangal … Petitioner And P. Ram Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, aged about 62
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.5896 of 2009
Date: December 31, 2009
Between:
Velide Chakradhar, S/o. Sambaiah,Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business,R/o.H.No.12-8-298, Sai Nagar Colony,Hunter Road, Warangal … Petitioner
And
P. Ram Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, aged about62 years, R/o.H.No.11-25-100, Kothawada,Warangal, and others … Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order:
This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,is filed aggrieved by the order dated 21-10-2009, passed by the learned IIAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.684 of 2008 in I.A.No.774of 2007 in I.A.No.325 of 2007 in O.S.No.234 of 2007.
Respondents 1 to 7 herein are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit filed bythem against the petitioner herein, who is defendant No.7 therein, and others, for injunction simplicitor. They filed I.A.No.684 of 2008 under Section 5 ofLimitation Act, to condone the delay of 42 days in filing a petition under OrderIX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The same is allowed by thecourt below by the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition.
It is the case of the petitioner herein that though the respondent No.1herein has stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.325 of 2007 that hewas not well and was advised rest; as such he could not attend the court on08-09-2008, the date on which the case was posted, but, he has appeared insome other case for cross-examination.
In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.325 of 2007, respondent No.1herein has stated that he could not attend the court on the date of hearing ofthe petition as he was bedridden and unable to move. The court below,taking the aforesaid fact into consideration, and, having considered thecounter filed by the petitioners herein, by recording valid reasons, hasallowed I.A.No.684 of 2008 and condoned the delay of 42 days in filingI.A.No.325 of 2007. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed bythe court below, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India.
The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordinglydismissed. No order as to costs.
______________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J