Telangana High Court
CRP/3454/2015 of MADUGU BHARGAWA, HYDERABAD Vs TELLAPURAM DASHARATHA, R.R.DIST AND ANR on 31 December 2021
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA tvr stoN ITI O: 34 F2 (Petition Under Section 1 15 of c.p.c against the orders dated 2g.07.201s made in IA.No.63 ol 2014 in o.S.No.43 of 2oo7
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
tvrstoNITIO: 34F2
(Petition Under Section 1 15 of c.p.c against the orders dated 2g.07.201s made inIA.No.63 ol 2014 in o.S.No.43 of 2oo7 on the file of the court of the Junior civit Judge,Chevella, Ranga Reddy District)Chevella, Ranga Reddy District)
Between:
Madugl.t H. No. 8-1 Bhargawa -28410Ul478, S/o. Osmania M. Sathyanarayana, Univeriity Colo"ny, nV-aLrL6ao.Aged about 30.years, Occ: pvt. Employee R/o.
...pETtTtoNERypETtTIONERypLAtNTtFF
AND
l Tellapuram Dasharatha Sujatha, wlo s/o.MaIaiah, Dasharatha, Aged abJut Aged s/o.MaIaiah, Dasharatha, Aged abJut Aged Aged about 43 vears. iO'vJai. occ: Aoricurture<ii", Aoricurtureii;;;; \iiii.-occ: Aoricurture<ii", Aoricurtureii;;;; \iiii.- 2 Tettapuram Tellapuram Dasharatha Sujatha, wlo s/o.MaIaiah, Dasharatha, Aged abJut Aged about 43 vears. iO'vJai. occ: Aoricurture<ii", Aoricurtureii;;;; \iiii.-tsorh are R/o. Kondakar Vi age, shankarpafly Mandar. ilanga Reddy District.
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. p.VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.i&2: SRI M. pRATAp SINGH
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE [SMT. JUSTICE ][P. SREE SUDHA]CML REVISION [PETITION ][No'3454 of ][2O15]
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 C.R.P. [is ][filed ][questioning ][the ][order ][dated]28.7.2015 [passed ][in ][I'A'No'63 ][of ][2Ol4 ][in ][O'S'No'43 of ][2OO7]on the file [of ][Junior ][Civil Judge' ][Chevelia' ][Ranga ][Reddy]district.
2. The suit in [O.S.No'43 ][of ][2OO7 ][was ][filed ][for ][specific]performance [of ][unregistered ][sale deed ][dated 18'3'2002 ][and]for consequential [injunction' ][The ][said ][suit ][was dismissed ][for]default on [17 ][.8.2OO7 ][for non-payment ][of ][process' ][Since ][there]was delay in [fiting ][restoration ][application' I'A'No'63 ][of ][2014]was filed [seeking ][condonation of ][delay ][of ][2799 ][days ][in ][filing]the said [restoration]application. [The ][trial ][Court, ][bY]28.7.201.5 [dismissed ][the ][said ][I'A']impugned [order ][dated]Hence this [C.R.P.]
3. According [to ][the ][petitioner, ][his ][earlier ][counsel ][in ][the]lower Court [i.e. Mr.A.Shirish ][has ][not informed ][him ][about ][the]status of the [case ][and on suspicion ][and ][upon ][his ][insistence']he gave the [case ][details ][to the petitioner ][recently, ][stating ][that]the suit was [dismissed ][for ][default ][on ][17'8'2007 ][for ][non-]of [process ][and ][the ][counsel ][gave ][no objection vakalat]payment andhandedoverofficebundletothepetitionerintheyear2014andaftercomingtoknowaboutthesame,petitioner \
had taken steps to file the petition for restoring the suit andin that process, there is a delay of 2L99 days had occurred,which is neither willful nor wanton, but oniy due to themistake on the part of petitioner,s earlier counsel. Thelearned counsel for revision petitioner submits that themistake of non-payment of process in the main suit is notattributable to the petitioner and that the petitioner has gotfair chances of success in the main suit.
4. Heard and perused the material available on recordThe trial Court in the impugned order has held that the delayof six and half years is not properly explained and thepetitioner has failed to show sufificient cause to consider theapplication and that the petitioner has not acted diligently.Having gone through the impugned order and other materiaJ,I am of the view that the trial Court rightly dismissed thepetition, which needs no interference by this Court.
Therefore, this Civii Revision petition is dismissed. Noorder as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall stand closed.
SD/-L.SIVA [PARVATHI]ASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]6,SECTION [OFFICER]
/ITRUE [COPY//]
To,1.r h e J u [n ][i ][o ][r ][c ][iv ][i ][I ][J ][ud ]s [e ]n 2.aone 6nE EE CC to i" [Sri ][Eii ][P ][r'r ][Vishnuvardha][i;iri"p ]" [Si;sh ]"Y" l'f [.Advocite ]['#'JlX', ]X,i,l"d;laH ?3 [(oPUc)][EL ]",4.Two CD [Copies]ks1.r h e J u [n ][i ][o ][r ][c ][iv ][i ][I ][J ][ud ]s [e ]n 2.aone 6nE EE CC to i" [Sri ][Eii ][P ][r'r ][Vishnuvardha][i;iri"p ]" [Si;sh ]"Y" l'f [.Advocite ]['#'JlX', ]X,i,l"d;laH ?3 [(oPUc)][EL ]",4.Two CD [Copies]ks HIGH COURT
PSSJ
DATED:31 11212021
ORDER
CRP.No.3454 ot 2015
DISMISSING THE C.R.PWITHOUT COSTS.
1tIA.e+20217 JANloo-).{Ors PAiC