\ I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY REVIEW CRP MP NO: 825 OF 2011 lN CRP NO: 4845 OF 2008 BETWEEN ' ''* 1 . Syed Badruddin Hyder, S/o. Late Syed Rahmatullah, R/o. USA, Rep. By GPA Holder Mr. Naozar Chenoy, S/o. Nausheer S. Chenoy, aged about 57 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant, Rlo. A3l I, Macintyre Road, Secunderabad. AND 1. Plant Organics Limited, A Company registered under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956, having its regd. office At 8-3-677 l3L, Srikrishnadevaraya Nagar, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. V. Ramakrishna Rao, W/o. Sri Subba Rao, aged about 56 years. REVIEW PETITIONtrR/ RESPONDENT. ...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER 2. Mohammed Mazharul Haque, , S/d. Ammerul Haque, R/o.12-2-8OO 146 & 47, Rethibowli, Dilshadnagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 3. Masood Rahjmatullah, S/o. Late. Rahmatullah, R/o. 6-3-250/5, Road No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS Petition under Section '151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may.be pleased to review its order and set aside the order made in cRp No. 3100 of 2oo7 dt. 1oth December, 2010 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit. REVIEW CRP MP NO: 769 OF 2011 lN CRP NO: 3100 OF 2007 AND CRP MP NO.769 OF 2011: il I Petition under Section 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia of CPC to revise/ against the Order dared rc|1Ot2OO6 in in ruo.ZAOSl2OO4 in AS No (SR) 6767 of 2004 on the file of tn. corrt oiin-" cr,i"t.luog", city civil court, Hvderabad' CRP NO.31 000 F 2007: lletu ecrr !1,/s Plart Orcan cs Ltd.,a companv registered UnCer the provisions ofcompanies Act,l956 Having its reiste:ed office at8-3-677131 Srikrishnadevalaya nagar, Yellareddyguda Hydcrabad rep.b r its Managing Director V.Ramakrishna l{ao s/o sri Subba rao Aged about 56 y-s., And r) Syed Bacruddin Hyder s/o Late.Syed Rahmatu.lah, aged about 59 yrs., r/o USA Rep.by CPA Holder Naozar Chenoy s/o Nausheer S.Chenoy, aged about 57 yrs Occ:char-ered accouffant l/o i43/l Macintyr: road Secunderabad 2) -- PETITIONER PETITIONER/APPELLANT ii Mohamn,ed Mazharul Haque Vo Ameerul Haque, aged about 4g yrs., Occ:llusi ness r/ o l2-Z,8Q0l 46&47 Rethibou li, Dilshadnagar,Mehdipatnam Hyderabed 3) Masood I i.ahmatullah s/o Late.Rahamatullah Aged about 4l 1,rs occ:Business r/o 6-3-2SOls Road No.1. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -- RESPONDEN'TS/ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS { I l -- l. $y-ed Badruddin Hyder, S/H'Late Syed'Rahmatiillah, R/o. USA, Rep By GPr{!}*slder,MrJ.trSdoar'Ghc'nofi ' ,: :,.'. Slq, N_aushee{.$. CFgpg.y,,aged ab5ut 57.years, , . OcUl Ctiartered AcCbutithiit , Klo. 143 I | , Meoia:ty.teiRoad ; ; Secunderahpd REVIEW CRPMP NO,825 OF 2011: BETWEEN l'-Rlant,Qfganios ddplitcd; r t REVIEW PETNIONER/ Hrd'pdnoEr{r. ' p i., bt:; I ! ,1 6 :At 7l,3tt; I H r.' W/o. Sri Subba Rao, aged about 56 yea.re. :-r'1. )1, I)SQ a'. ' 1i::':; ' . . . RESFQNDENT/ PSI{T{OT{ER '2. Mohasuhed Madrarul, [Iaque,; ij ]:'irtir-l S/o. Ammerul flaque, R/o,12-2-8OO146':*7], ,,' . ., Rethibowli, DilshddriAghi, Mehdipatnarrii Hyderiibad. 3. Masood Rahjmaluliah S/o. Late. Rahmatirilafi, R/o. 6-3-250/5, Road No' 1' BanjarralHille' Hyderabad' RES..TpENJS/ RE5eoNDENTS Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to review its Order and set aside the Order made in CRP No. 4845 of 2008 dt. 1Oth December, 2010 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit. I I ,IJ{J ,. :) I _':: ,, :r: r' i I .A .":t '. j.4, I:r .l.1snnE lrs cRP NO.4845 0F 2o0B: Petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of lndia of CPC to revise/ against the Order dirted 1911012006 in lA No.1784 12004 in AS (SR) 6767 of 2004 on the file of the Co rrt of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Betrveer L M/s Plant Organics Ltd.,a company registered Uncier the provisions ofcompanies Act,l956 Flaving its reistered office at 8-3-677131 Sri krish nadevaraya nagar, Yel lareddyguda Hyderabad rep.by its Managing Dilector V.RanriLkrishna Rao s/o sri Subba rao A gcd alror:t 5(. r'rs.. . PL,IIIIONEfu P ETI TI ON t, td/A P P E L t. A \T \nd fE v i) Sy,ed tsadnrddin Hyder s/o Late.Sl ed Raimratullah, agcd about 59 yrs., r/o USA Rep.by Gi'A Holder Naozar Chenoy s/o Nausheer S.Chenoy, aged about 57 yrs Occ:chartered accountant r/o I 43l I Nlacintyre road, Secundembad vlohammed Mazharul Haque ;/o Ameerul Haque, aged about 48 yrs., Jcc:Business rl o 12-2-8001 46&47 Rethibowli, Dilshadnagar,Mehdipatnam Hyderabad Masood Rahmatullah s/o Late.Rahamatullah .Aged about 4l yrs occ:Business rlo 6-3-25015 Road No.l, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad .- RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTSiRES PONDENTS t iI { ,/ zt 3) I This petilion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon 'hearing the arguments of Sri.L.Venkateshrryar Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri J.prabhakar, Advocate for the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER I I I / --_ IION'BLE SMT. JUS'TICE G. ANUPAMA CIIAKITAVARTHY Rcvierv CRI'.MP.No.769 of 20ll in CRI'.No.3100 of 2007 and Rcviov.CRP.MP.No.825 of 20ll in CRP.No.,l845 of 2008 COMMON OIIDIiR : These 1wo review miscellaneous petitions are filed seeking to review the comrnon order dated 10.12.2010, passed in Civil Revision Petition Nos.3100 of2007 and 4845 of2008, and to set asidc the said order' 2. -l'he civil revision petitions are filed against the order dated 19.10.2006 in l.A.Nos.2803 and 1785 of 2004 in A.S.(SR).No. 6767 ol 2004 on the file ol Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hydelabad. Initially, i.A.No.2803 of 2004 was filed rmder Section 5 of the Lirnitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 963 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 23.04.2001 in O.S.No.983 of 1993 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hydelabad and I.A.No.1785 of 2004 was hled seeking to grant leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 23.04.2001,in O.S.No.983 o1'1993. I 2 G.1(, J Rcr-CRl'.ll P.^'o.769 of 201 I in CRP-No.3 l0t) of 2007 & Rct'.CRP.itl P.No.825 of 201I irt CRP.No.4345 of 2008 3. The revis ion petitioner is a purchascl of tl-re suit schedule property pendir.g the suit i.e. O.S.No.983 of 1993. r\s the above said interlocutory applications arc dismissed bi,the trial Court, he preferred the r,:r,ision petitions. This Court, by a common order dated 10.12.2(r10, alloived both the revision petitions, \vith an obseruation thrt, "the Court bclow Cid not go into rnerits of the matter and ca re to a conclusion that these type of applications need not be dismissed and the parties are to be given opportunity". Thus, liberty \vas given to the petitioners to file appeal against the judgnrent datt:d 23.04.2001 in O.S.No.983 of 1993, by leaving it t open to the petitioner to raise all the pleas and ob.iections in the said appeal, vrhich shall be considered and disposed of on merits in gccordance ra ith law. 4. Heard leamed counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 5. It is lhe contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner Sri S.Ravi that the revision petitioner had prior knowledge irbout the pendency of the suit i.e. O.S.No.983 of 1993 I I I I I 3 G.1C, J RIN.CRP.lIl'.N1,.769 of 20l l in CRP.No.3l00 of 2007 & Rev.C'R?.MP.No.l]25 of 20I I itr CRP.NI.4845 o/2008 on the flle of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and inspite of it, purchased the property and did not implead hirnself as party in the pending proceedings and waited on the sidelines till the pronouncernent of judgment, therefore, now he cannot seek leave to file a fiesh appeal i.e. A.S.(SR).No.6767 of 2004 against the judgrnent and decree in O.S.No.983 of 1993. It is also the contention of the lean-red Senior Counsel that this Court ought to have seen that the respondent has not established any grounds for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the said petition as the respondent did not explain to the Court as to what prevented him from approaching the Court at the earlier point of time. 6. , The leamed Senior Counsel for review petitioner, in support of his case, relied on th! judgment in Board of Control for Cricket in India & another v. Netaji Cricket Club & othersr, wherein, their Lordships have held in para 90 as under; "Thus, a mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of the unde(aking may also call for a review ofthe order. An application for review would also be i{i,' '(zodt 4scc 741 I I I 4 GAC, ,I Rcr'.CRlt.lll'. t\o.769 of 201 I in CRP. \'o.3 100 rt! 2007 & Rct'.CRP.MP. \a-825 of 201I iu CRP.:\'o.48.t5 uf 2008 maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therclbr. What would ,lonstitute sufficient reason \vould depend on the facts and cir()umstances of thc casc. Thc u,ords "sulficierrt reason" in Ordr'r 47 Rule I of thc Code arc widc enough to includc a miscon;eption ol fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be nccessitated by wal of invokir g the doct ne "acl uas curiae neminent gravabil" . 7. The learned Senior Counsel for review petitiorler has further relied on trre judgment of Hon'ble Supreme (lourt in Esha Bhattachar.iec v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & others2, wherein, it is held in para 2l as under : '21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culfed out are: 2l.l (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice- oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation ofdelay, for thc courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21,2 (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms aro basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. 21,3 (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 'z lzor:; rz sc: o+s I - 5 CAC, J Rcv.('Rl'.!UP.No.769 of 20I I in CRP.No.3100 of 2007 & Ret.CRP.MP.Na.825 of 201I i,t CRP.No,1815 of 2008 21.4 (iv) No presumplion can be attached to deliberatc causation of delay but, gross negligence on the paft of the counscl or litigant is to be takcn note of. 21.5 (v) I-ack of bona fidcs imputable to a party seeking condonation ofdelay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6 (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultinrate eventuate there is no real failure ofjustic? 21.7 (vii) 1'he concept ol liberal approach has 1o encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unl'ettercd lree play. 21.8 (viii) -Ihere is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine ol prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whercas the second calls for a liberal delincation. , 21.9 (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the frrndamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh thc scale oi balance ofjustice in respect of both pafiies and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10 (x) If the explanation oflered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 2f.f 1 (xi) It is to be bome in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12 (xii) The entile gamut of f'acts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the I L._ \ ( 6 G,,IC. J Rer-C IU'. LI P- No- 769 rtf 2tt I I i t t C R P- I' o- 3 I l)0 of 2 00 7 cQ Rev.CRP.MP.i\1o.825 tlf 201 I in CRI'.No.4845 of 2008 paradigni of judicial discretion which is tbundcd on ob.iective reasoning and not on individual pcrception. 21.13 (xiii) The State or a public bodv or an entity representing a collective cause should bc given some acceptable latitudc." 8. On the other hand, it is contented by the lcarned Serrior Counsel Sri J.Prabhakar, appearing for the respondent that there is no emor apl)arent on the face of the order passcd in the revision petitions. and by virtue of the decree, the party affected has every right to 1-rle an appeal and the delay in filing the appeal has to be condoned as substantial rights of the parties are involved. 9. In a review petition, the orders can be rcviewed il tl-rere is any error atrparent on the face of the record or il any nerv facts are discovered rlier passing of such orders. Admittedly, the record "reveals tha. the suit schedule property was purchased by the respondent Juring the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.983 of 1993. It is the sp€cific observation in the order dated 10.12.2010 passed in the revision petitions that "ln fact, the Court below did not go into the merits and did not find favour with the request of the petitio,1er". But, on perusal of the trial Court order, it is evident that a detailed order has been passed by the trial Court while I \ 7 GAC. J Rer-C RI'.,rll'.,\'0.769 oI 201 I i,t CllP.No.3l00 0f 2007 & Rer.CRP.:rlP.i'o.825 of 201I in CRP.t\o.4815 of 2008 disposing of both the interlocutory applications i.e. the petition for condoning the delay in fiting the appeal as well as the petition for grant of leave to file appeal. The order of the trial Court disclose that the respondent herein has the knowledge of pendency of the suit i.e. O.S.No.983 of 1993, but purchased the property which was hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Propefty Act. The trial Court, after considering the judgment reported in Dhanna Singh v. Baljinder Kaur3, came to a conclusion that a person who purchases the property pendente lite, cannot maintain appeal independently. The trial Court fufther relied on the judgment in Jaskirat Datwani v. Vidyavati{, rvherein, it is held that the transferee of the property pendente lite would be bound by the decree when he has knowledge ofthe proceedings. Thus, the trial Court dismissed the petition without granting any leave to file the appeal. Further, it is to be noted that the delay in filing the appeal is 963 days and no reasons are assigned by the I't respondent herein, for such delay. The trial Court has come to a conclusion that there is no justification for the petitioner to come forward with 3 (1997) 5 scc 4761 o Jlzoozl s scc o+z I i 8 G..1,C, J Rct.CRP.tIP.No.769 of 201 I inCRP..\1t-3lt)0of 2007 & Rev.CRP.MP.i\o.82 5 of 2l)l I iu CRI'.\0-4845 of 2008 the application lor condonation of huge delay ol'963 days without suff-rcient r easons. The judgments relied on by thc learncd Senior Counsel fc,r the review petitioner u,ill squarel) apl)ly to thc facts and circurr stances of the present case. 10. On the face of the record, it is evident thai tlrc trial Cour1, on considerinl the contentions of both the parties, has givcn elaborate reasons fol disrnissing the petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as well as the petition to grant leave to filc appeal. It is the specifi; finding of the trial Court that no propr'r cxplanation has been giverr to condone the inordinate delay of 963 days in tiling thc appeal an([ also failed to substantiate as to why the 1'' respondent herein i.e. the petitioner before the trial Courl did not implead himsell in the suit knowing pretty well about tlre pendency of the suit. On perusal of the common order dated I 0. 12.20 I 0, it is evident that a specific observation is made while allowing the revision petitions by the leamed Judge that, "[n fact the court below did not go into the merits and did not firld favour rvith the request oJ'the petitioner", which itself is an error apparent on the { I r 9 C.,IC, J Rcr,,CRI'.lII'.:\o.769 tt! 201 I in CRP.No.J 100 of 2007 & RevCRP-itl P.No-85 of 2(l I I in ('RP-N2.4845 of 2008 lace of record, as the trial Court has dealt the matter with minute details 11. In view of the above, the review petitions are allowed, setting aside the order of this Court dated 10.12.2010 in C.R.P.Nos.3100 of 2007 and 4845 ol 2008. Consequently, both the said revision petitions shall stand dismisscd as devoid o1'merits. No order as to costs. /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Kj '1. The Chief Judoe. Citv Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records) 2. One CC to SriJ.Pradhakar, Advoca(e ioprlci '"""' 9 9n" qq to Sri L.Venkateshwa, il;, A!"""; topucl 1. 9n" CC to Sri G. Katyan Chakrav;6y;A;;Jr'tI'tdpuct 3. Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy Sd/-P.PADMANABHA AEDDY ,/ ASSISTANT REq.{STRAR . I I \ I HIGH COURT DATED:0710712022 COMMON JUDGMI:NT REVIEW CRP MP I'10.769 OF 2011 AND REVTEW CRP MP NO.82s OF 2011 [ / i[r mm a) +, t S Lq I i..- lN CRP.No.3100 of 2007 lN CRP.NO.4845 of 2008 *t s :: -)<