Telangana High Court
CRP/5045/2009 of Soudaghar Majhar Begum Vs Konathala Jagannadha Rao on 29 December 2009
G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5045 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 05-08-2009 in I.A.No.2466 of 2007 in I.A.No.423 of 2007 in an unnumbered first appeal on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed under Section
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHYC.R.P.No.5045 OF 2009
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 is directed against the order dated 05-08-2009 in I.A.No.2466 of 2007 inI.A.No.423 of 2007 in an unnumbered first appeal on thefile of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the saidapplication filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act tocondone the delay of 46 days in filing I.A.No.423 of 2007for restitution of the first appeal, was dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.None appeared for the respondents, through served withnotices. Perused the record.
3. The petitioners herein are defendants in thesuit. The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs forrecovery of certain amount due on mortgage decree. Thesuit was decreed for a sum of Rs.4,19,647/-. Aggrievedby the same, the petitioners filed first appeal before thelearned District Judge. As there was a delay of 52 days infiling the appeal, the petitioners filed I.A.No.423 of 2007 forcondoning the same. The said application was allowed tosubject to the condition that the petitioners shall depositRs.200/- to the District Legal Services Authority. The saidamount was not deposited. Hence, I.A.No.423 of 2007was dismissed. The petitioners filed I.A.No.2466 of 2007for restoration. By the impugned order, dated 05-08-2009,the said application was dismissed, observing that the petition was filed only to protract the litigation and thereare no bona fides. According to the petitioners, they could notpay the amount of costs as they went to Raipur for theappellants’ daughter’s marriage.
4. Be that as it may, as the petitioners havesuffered a decree and they intend to challenge the sameby way of an appeal and the delay of 52 days in filing theappeal having, in fact, been condoned subject to paymentof costs of Rs.200/-, which costs they did not pay, it isconsidered that an opportunity can be granted to thepetitioners to pay the said amount and have the appealdisposed of on merits.
5. In the circumstances, it is considered that theends of justice would be met by permitting the petitionersto deposit the costs of Rs.200/-, already ordered by thelearned District Judge, within four weeks from today to theDistrict Legal Services Authority and on such deposit, thedelay in filing the appeal would stand condoned.
6. In the result, the civil revision petition isdisposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as tocosts.
____________________
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
29[th] December, 2009
Lrkm.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESHAT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.R.P.No.5045 OF 2009
Between:-Soudaghar Majhar Begum and others A n d …Petitioners Konathala Jagannadha Rao and another …Respondents