CRP/1215/2010 of Smt. Rekha Patel Vs Sri P.Venkateswara Rao on 31 December 2010

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1215 OF 2010Dated 31-12-2010

Between:

Rekha Patel and another.

…Petitioners.

And:

P.Venkateswara Rao and others.

…Respondents.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1215 OF 2010ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.On 30-12-2010, when the matter was called, there was norepresentation from the respondents even though the matter wasposted under the caption “For Dismissal”.

Even today, when the matter is called, none appeared forthe respondents. This Court therefore proceeded to dispose of theC.R.P. on merits.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orderspassed on 29-12-2009 passed by the learned Principal DistrictJudge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1702 of 2009in C.M.A. SR. No.3958 of 2009.

There was some delay in filing C.M.A. by the RevisionPetitioners. The C.M.A. is against the order of dismissal ofI.A.No.1647 of 2008 which was filed under Order 39Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary prohibitoryinjunction.

It was submitted by the Revision Petitioners before thelearned District Judge that trial Court’s order in I.A.No.1647 of 2008 was pronounced on 26-11-2008 but they received certifiedcopy of the order in the said I.A. in January, 2009 and thereafter,they contacted their counsel and the papers for filing C.M.A. weremade ready but unfortunately, the petitioner’s brother died on 02-02-2009 in a road accident in Ahemadabad in the State of Gujaratand the revision petitioners had to rush to Ahmadabad andconsequently, this delay of 33 days has occurred in filing theC.M.A.

All these facts have been set out in the additional affidavitfiled by the revision petitioners. However, the learned DistrictJudge found from the records that in fact, the petitioners appliedfor certified copy of the order on 04-02-2009 thoughthe order in injunction petition was pronounced on 26-11-2008 andthey received copy on 9-2-2009. It is observed thatthere is no explanation from the revision petitioners for the delay inapplying the certified copies. According to the learned DistrictJudge, the delay actually occurred is more than two months butnot 33 days as mentioned by the petitioners in their affidavit. Thelearned District Judge took a view that the petitioners failed tomake out a sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing theC.M.A. and accordingly, dismissed the I.A.No.1702 of 2009.

It is true that in the petitions, seeking condonation of eachday’s delay has to be explained. But the apex Court in a catena ofjudgments has laid down that as far as practicable, the Courtshave to enable the parties to contest their cases on merits and thisCourt can refuse to condone the delay only when it is inordinateand is in the nature of causing prejudice to the rights of theopposite party.

In my view the District Judge had indulged in meticulousexamination of the grounds urged by the revision petitioners insupport of their petition seeking condonation of delay. Such a meticulous examination in my view is not required. The delay ofmore than two months cannot be said to be inordinate delay. Might be out of mistake, the revision petitioners mentioned that thedelay of 33 days had occurred. I am therefore of the consideredview that the learned District Judge ought to have allowed theI.A.No.1702 of 2009 seeking condonation of delay in filing C.M.A.

For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the DistrictJudge is therefore liable to be set aside.

For the reasons aforementioned, the order dated 29-12-2009 passed by the District Judge is setaside and the delay occasioned in filing C.M.A. is condoned andconsequently, I.A.No.1702 of 2009 is allowed.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition isallowed. No costs.

__________________________

Justice R.KANTHA RAO

Dated 31-12-2010Dvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1215 OF 2010

Dated 31-12-2010