Telangana High Court
CRP/1901/2006 of Ramidi Kistamma, Vs Samreddy , Pedda Bhavi Bakka Reddy, on 28 December 2012
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1901 of 2006 Dt:- 28.12.2012 Between:- Ramidi Kitamma and others … Petitioners and Samreddy @ Pedda Bhavi Bakka Reddy and others … Respondents This Court made the following:- HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION
Dt:- 28.12.2012
-Between:
Ramidi Kitamma and others
and
… Petitioners
Samreddy @ Pedda Bhavi Bakka Reddy and others … Respondents This Court made the following:-
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: -
Heard learned Senior Counsel on either side.
The order impugned is the one passed by the appellate authorityunder A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground that it isinordinately delayed by 17 years.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners states that the saidappeal was filed as early as on 07.08.2003 and the appeal wasentertained and an interim order was also granted in favour of thepetitioners. The appeal was thereafter contested before the lowerappellate authority. However, instead of deciding the appeal on merits,the Joint Collector has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delaywithout touching upon the merits. Learned senior counsel also statesthat when the appeal was already entertained and interim order waspassed, even if there is any delay, the same is deemed to have been condoned.
I have examined the order impugned. Evidently even at the timeof filing of the appeal after 17 years of the original order, no applicationfor condonation appears to have been filed nor any sufficient causemade out. However, the appellate authority had entertained the appealand granted interim orders. The same, however, was an ex parte orderand was open for consideration at the time of final disposal. After therespondents appeared and contested the matter, the appellate authorityhas come to the conclusion that the appeal is barred by time and doesnot deserve to be entertained. I see no illegality or irregularitywarranting correction by this Court.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Themiscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs.
28.12.2012lmv
_____________________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
lmv
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1901 of 2006
28.12.2012