Telangana High Court
CRP/6526/2012 of Chidrapu Chinnanna Vs Smt. Laxmi on 31 December 2012
G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.R.P.No.6526 of 2012 ORDER: In this Civil Revision Petition (CRP) assailed order dated 09-10-2012 passed in I.A.No.388 of 2007 in O.S.No.21 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan (IA). The petitioners herein are the respondents 5 to 7 in the
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:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDYC.R.P.No.6526 of 2012
In this Civil Revision Petition (CRP) assailed order dated 09-10-2012 passed in I.A.No.388 of 2007 in O.S.No.21 of 1998 on the file ofthe Court of Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan (IA).
The petitioners herein are the respondents 5 to 7 in the IA anddefendants 5 to 7 in the suit whereas the respondents herein are thepetitioner and respondents 1 to 4 in the IA and plaintiff and defendants 1 to4 in the suit. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the IA.
The petitioner filed the suit against the respondents for partition andseparate possession of 1/3[rd] share in the plaint schedule agricultural lands,house and cattle situated at Saloora village of Bodhan Mandal, NizamabadDistrict. Subsequently she could not attend the Court in consequence ofwhich the Court below dismissed the suit for default. Therefore, she filed aninterlocutory application to set aside the default order and restore the suit toits file and as there was delay of 1275 days in doing so, she filed the IAunder Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone that delay.
Her plea is that she fell sick as she was pregnant on 11-06-2003 and subsequently she gave birth to one male child.
On the advise of doctor, she could not move during her pregnancy. On theother hand the first respondent agreed for compromise along with the otherrespondents in the matter involved in the suit which she believed by reasonof which also she failed to take necessary measures. But the respondentsfailed to come forward for the compromise. She asserts that only in view ofthose circumstances she could not attend the Court.
The claim of the respondents is that the petitioner has taken falsepleas. She has failed to give proper explanation for the delay caused infiling the application to set aside the default order and restore the suit.
The Court below accepted the pleas taken by the petitioner.
It is the observation of the Court below that the petitioner is shown to be alabourer. According to the petitioner’s Advocate, the petitioner is having ashare in the suit properties. Therefore, it is reasonable to allow the IA. With those observations the Court below allowed the IA aggrieved by which thepresent CRP has been filed.
Learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 has contended that theCourt below failed to appreciate the matter properly. Condoning the delayof 1275 days in filing the application to set aside the default order andrestoring the suit is nothing but arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the wellestablished principles of law. According to him the Court below failed togive proper reasons while allowing the IA.
On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has submittedthat the order passed by the Court below is quite reasonable and hencethere is no reason to interfere with that order.
Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the Court below properlyappreciated the matter while allowing the IA to condone the delay.
Significantly huge properties involved in the suit. Significantly theclaim of the petitioner is that the suit schedule properties happened to bethe joint family properties of herself and the respondents. She is thedaughter of the first respondent and sister of the second respondent. Shegot married about 8 years prior to the filing of the suit. The first respondenthas got brothers namely Chidrapu Chinnanna, Chidrapu Yellappa andChidrapu Gangaram.
All the four brothers divided the properties in the year 1993 in which the firstof them (first respondent) got suit A, B, C and D schedule properties. Thefirst respondent has got no male issues. Further at the time of her marriagethe first respondent agreed to give her a share in the property. Therefore,she claims the property as a coparcener of the family by virtue of the HinduSuccession Act, 1956 read with subsequent amended Act 39 of 2005.
Further it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a labourer. Suchpeople are not well versed with the Court litigations. On the other handimportantly it is clearly claimed by her that the respondents agreed forcompromise with her and having believed them, she prolonged the matterwithout taking necessary steps in the proceedings before the Court. It isenough if the delay is explained broadly. Further in the circumstances ofthe case by allowing the petition no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party because there is only a question of their legal entitlementover the properties. If the petitioner is entitled to 1/3[rd] share in the suitproperties as per law accordingly she has to get her share ultimately in thesuit. It is difficult to consider that deliberately she dodged the matter. I donot find any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and it isaccordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed. No costs.
Date: 31-12-2012YCR
_________________________
G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J