HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI l.A.NOs. '1 & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 974 OF 2006 l,A,NOs. 1 & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 976 OF 2006 A.NOs. 1 & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 977 OF 2006 t.A.NO s. I & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 978 OF 2006 AND l.A.NOs. 1&2O F 2009 lN WA NO: 979 OF 2006 l.A.NOs. 1&2OF2009 lN WA NO: 974 OF 2006 Betwee n: I, 1 Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Sociqty Ltd., repby President Ir/. Ellamaiah H. No. 4-t ot , 1st Floor, Madhavinagar, Ferozguda, Hyderabad Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Rep by Sri K. Srinivas Rao H. No. 4-1 61, 1st Floor, MadhavinaQar, Ferozgudr: !I+ii,*^ft*. 2 AND 1. The A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Chan Hvderabad. 2 P:S Sastrv S/o P. Sree Ramulu, Reti Kimtee Coiony, Tarnaka HYderabad dravihar Build ings,, Nampally, red Employee, Ryo Street No.1, Lane-2, l.A. NO: '1 OF 2009 RESPONDENTS (WAMP. NO: 844 OF 2009) Petition under section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 109 days in filing the set-aside petition seeking set-aside of the order dated 07-11-2008 passed in WAMP SRNo. 46071 of 2007 in WA No. 97 4 ol 2006 in the interest of .lustice and fatr play l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009 (WAM P. NO: 34378 OF 2009) Petition under Order 9 Rule 9 R/w. Section 151 CPC praying that in the Qircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the Order dated 07.1 1 .2008 passed in LA.NOs. 1 & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 975 OF 2006 l W.A.M.P.(SR) No.46071 o'f 2007 in W.A.No.974 of 2006 in the interest of Justice and fair play. 4 This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon reading the Order dated 07.'1 1.2008 rn WAIVP(SR) No.46071 ol 2007 in W.A.No.97.1 of 2006 and upon hearing tlre argLlments of Sri V. Naras mha Goud, Counsel for the petilioners rn LA,Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 in W.A.No.974 of 2006 and of Sri Polavarapu Srinrvas, Ccunset for Respondent No. 2 in l.A,Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009. l.A.NOs. 1 & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 975 OF 2006 Betwee n : I Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, rep.b,, its President Sri.N4.Ellaiah H,No.4-161, 1st floor, Madhavinagar, Ferozguda Hyderabad Voltas Employees co-op House Building Society Limted, rep.by its Secrelary, Sri K.Srinivas Rao H.No.4-161, 1st floor, IVadhavinagar, Ferozguda Hyderabad ,..PETITIONERS AND 1. The A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. N.Suryaprakash Rao, S/o.Sri N.Somaiah Employee R/o.SR/259 Sitharam Naoar, Neredmet, Secu nd era bad -500056 ...RESpoNDENrs LA. NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 846 OF 2009) Petition under Section 5 of Llmitation Act praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed n sr-rpport of the petilion, the Hiqh CcLirl rna,,, be oleased io condone the celay of gll da'/s rn frlino the sel-as oe oe: I,-rn s.jck ril set-aside of the orcjer (iated 07-1'1 -2008 passed irr '"t,rA 1.1P SR ND tr,11)aB cf 2 - 'r n WA No. 975 of 2C06 in tne interest of lustrce and ferr play l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 34380 0F 2009) Petition under Order 9 Ruie I R/w. Seclion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to set-aside the Order dated 07.1 1 .2008 papsed rn WAMP(SR) No.46068 of 2007 in W.A.No.975 of 2006 in the rnterest of justice and fair play. Thls petjiron coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon reading the order dated 07.11.2008 in WAN4P(SR) No,46068 of 2007 in W.A.No.975 of 2006 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Counsel for the petitioners in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 in W,A.No.975 of 2006 and of Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, Counsel for Respondent No, 2 in l.A.Nos. 1 &2of 20OO in W.A.No.975 of 2006. Betwee n : 2 Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, -rep.by its President Sri.t'/.EIlamaiah H,No.4-161 , 1st floor, Madhavinagar, Ferozguda Hyderabad V6ttas Emptoyees co-op House Building Society Ltd,, rep by its Secretary, Sri K.srinivas'Rao H.No.4-1 61 , 1st floor, Madhavinagar, FerozOuda.l-p$1i?3,i9-, AND I -ir'r,,A P C:c:rerati.''e Tlbtrna. Chandravlha ; K S,,ar'.,":it pr i S o Late Sa' K. Rrm.r Rl ''t )t . E-:, '.':r :I .t ar'a;a'. 1-'1; Ji:'-'li,':,.1-iilC3l' r B uild ing. Nampally. Hyderabad Retirecl Employee R/o.Plot RESPONDENTS r.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 850 O F 2009) Petition under Section 5 of Limltation Act praytng that in the clrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed ln support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the detay of '1 09 days in filing the set aside petition seeking set aside the order dated 07-11-2008 passed in wAlvP SR No. 46065/2007 in WA No. 976/2006 in the interest of justice and fair play. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009 (WAMP. NO: 34383 oF 2009) Petition und er Order 9 Rule I R/w. Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the Order dated 07,11.2008 passed in WAMP(SR) No.46065 ol 2007 in W.A.No.976 of 2006 in the interest of justice a nd fa ir play, This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon reading the Order dated 07.11.2008 in U/A|\4P(SR) No.46065 o'f 2007 in W.A No.976 of 2006 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Narasintha Goud, Counsel for the petitioners in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 l.A.NOs. '1 & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 976 OF 2006 of 2009 in W.A.No,976 of 2006 and of Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, Counsei for Respondent No. 2 in l,A.Nos. 1 &2 of 2009 in W.A.No.976 of 2006. Betwee n: 1. Voltas Employees Co.operative Housing Building Society Limited. rep., by its President lr/.Ellaiah, H.No,4-161 , 1st Floor, Madhavinagar. Ferozguda, H ydera bad. 2. Voltas Employees Co.op.House Building Society Limited, rep., by its Secretary, Sri K.Srinivas Rao, H.No.4-161, 1st Floor, lr,4adhavinagar, Ferozguda' Hyderabad ...pETrroNERS AND I , The A.P.Co.operatlve Tribunal, Chandravihar, Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad. Chitti Viswam,, s/o Sri C. S. R.Anjaneyulu, Head Clerk, It//s. Voltas Limited, Hyderabad, r/o Plot No.37, Railway Colony, Picket, Secunderabad-500 026 RESPONOENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 9(WA MP. NO: 848 OF 2009) Petition under Sectlon 5 of Limltatlon Act pray,ng that ln lhe c.r:-rn.r,s1a^,--,js stated rn the a{fidavll file,.1 in support of lrre pelilron the Hrcrr Cr:rrt n'iri i,-. oleased to ccr.rdcne the delay of 9! clays in filin3 the set aslde pelit o,. serk r',r: -':t aside the order dated 07-1 1-2008 passed in $/ANIP SR No. 46826i2C-'r7 in \i.rA i'rrr 977 2006 in the interest of lustice anC fair play. This petition coming on for he6rihg, upon perusing the Betition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon reading the Order dated 07.11.2008 in WAIMP(SR) No.46826 of 20A7 in W.A.No.977 of 2006 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Counsel for the petitioners in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 in W.A.No.977 of 2006 and of Srl Polavarapu Srinivas, Counset for Respondent No. 2 in l.A.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009 in W.A.No 977 of 2006. l.A.NOs. 1 & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 977 OF 2006 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 3438s OF 2009) Petition under Order g Rule g R/w. Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitjon, the Hiqh Court may be pleased to set-aside the Order dated 07.1 1 .2008 passed in WAMP(SR) No.46826 o'f 2007 in W.A.No.977 of 2006 in the interest of justice and fair play. l Betwee n: Voltas Empiovees Co.operative House Building Society Limited lep by its p#i,ie"i5ti i',l Ettamaiah, H.No.4-161, 1st Floor, lvladhavinagar' Ferozguda' H vd eratlad. VlniiE-J ovees Co.ope'ative House Burrdrng Society Lrmited.. represented l,,tsSecret'a"ySriKSririvasRaoH\o.4-r61'lstFloor'Nladnavrnagar' Fb'ozgucla HycJerabad ,.pETrTtoNERS TheA.P,CooperativeTribunalrep.,byChairman,,ChandraviharBuilding' Namoallv, Hvderabad. v^sl;r;;'.r(,i;ni- lto s|,i Subba Ramaiah, Emplovee, rlo 1-2'332819110' irivj Hdniion, Gaianmahal, Domalguda, Hyderabad-5O0 o'n..*.rroror*r. Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, rep.by its President Sri 'lvl.Ellamaiah H.No.4-161, 1st floor, L4adhavinagar Ferozguda, Hyderabad AND 2 l.A. NO: 1 oF 2009( WAMP. NO: 84I OF 2009) Petition under Section 5 CPC Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to condone the delay of (99) days in filing the set aside petition seeking set aside of the order dt.7-11-2OOB passed in wAI/P SR.No.46822 of 2OO7 in W.A.No. 978 of 2006 in the interest of .justice and fair play. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009 (WAMP. NO: 34387 OF 2009) Petition under Order 9 Rule 9 R/w. Section 151 CPC praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition the High court riay be pleased to set-aside the order ciated 07.'1 1-2008 passed in WANIPISR) No 46822 of 2oa7 in !v.A No.97B of 2006 in the interest of lustice . '..r f3 | i_rla), '.i-,:i peli cn rlaTnlf g on fcr nearrng upon perrls ng tne petilion and the ti'i ,:,r,,,,1 i r;(l lr sup!c]Tl 1l-erecf anC tlDun reaci n!r tie Orr.]r:r dateC 07 11'2C08 n ';^r'AiL,lPiSRt No..i6B22 of 2Oa7 ln \'V.A No 978 'of 2006 anC upon hearirlE the argurrents of Srr V. Narasimha Goud, COunsel for the petitiorrers in l.A.Nos.'1 & 2 of 2009 ln w.A.No.97B of 2OO6 and of srr Polavarapu Srinivas. counse for' Respondent No. 2 in l.A,Nos. 1 &2ol 2009 in W.A No 978 of 2006' r.A.NO s. 1&2OF 2009 lN W NO: 979 OF 2006 Between: l.A.NOs. I & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 978 OF 2006 6 2. Voltas Employees Co-o Sri K.Srinivas Rao Hyderabad pH H.N ouse Building Society Limited, rep.by its Secretary o.4-161, 1st floor, I\ladhavinagar Ferozguda, PETITIONERS AND 1, The A,P.Cooperative Tribunal, Chandravihar Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. K.Gopala Krishna Murthy, S/o.late Sri K,Sree Rama Murthy Retired Employee R/o.H. No.'1 -2-5411 . Domalguda, Gaganmahal Road, HyderaOu9.*..ooror"r= l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 847 OF 2009) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stateC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleaseC to condone the delay of gg days in filing the set-aside petition seekinr; set-asiCc oi the order dated 07-11-2008 passed in WAI\IP SRNo. 46819 ol 2A07 in \,t/A Nr 979 of 2006 in the interest of juslice and fair play l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 34391 oF 2009) Pelition under Order g Rule g R/w. Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the Order dated 07. 11.2008 passed in WAMP(SR) No.46819 ol 2007 in W.A.No.979 of 2006 in the interest of justice and fair play. This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon reading the Order dated 07.11.2008 in WAMP(SR) No.46819 of 2007 in W.A.No.979 of 2006 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Counsel for the petitioners in l.A,Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 in W.A.No.979 of 2006 and of Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, Counsel for Respondent No. 2 in LA.Nos. 1 &2 of 2009 in W,A.No.979 of 2006. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER The applications l;e ing I.,,\.No.2 ol 2009 h:rvc been lllcd irr alI tht: \\'rit Appeals for setting aside conrnron order clatcrl 07.11.2008, passecl in thc revierv applications, filcd for revicu' of Common Judgrncnr drucd 27.09.2006 passed in W.A.Nos.971 ro 979 of 2006. The applications being I.A.No.1 of 2009 havc been filed in all the appeals for condonation ofdelay in filing the aforesaid apPlications' On 09.07.2007' the Division Bench has dismissed the applications preferrecl lor condonation of delay in filing the applications to revierv of common jndgment dated 27.09.2006 passed in w.A.Nos.9'.l 4 to 9'79 of 2006. FIon.ever, thc revierv applications were directed to be listed on 30.07.2007. Srrbscr[rcntlr,, bv thc comrron ordcr clatcd 07.11.2008, thc l)ivision Ilclrclr hclti tl)at :rs lLpplications to conclrrtc thc de lav ltar c bcctl tlisll-rissetl .n 09.07.2007, rhc revicu peririons do rr<,rt sttrt'ivc lirr cottsidctatiott :tlltl rcjectcd thc re v ierv pctitions. 'l'he undisptrtcd l:rcts of the case reve:rl that Voltas Empioyees cooperarive l-Iouse Building socier), Limited (for short 'the socicn'') has preferred ,*'rit petitions in the year 2006 being aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2075, passed by the Andhra Pradesh cooperative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The facts further reveal that membership of large number ol me mbers s.as cliscontinued b1' passing resolution bv the Societv nndet thc Andhrzr Pradesl-r Coopcrative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') ltrcl tl're nrcmbcrs, *.hose mcmbership rvas discontir]ued, havc filecl appcrls bcforc tl.rt' I'ribrrr-r:rl. 'fhe 'I'ribtrnrLl h:ts urrivetl at a firtding of fact tl'r:tt opporttrrtitr ril'ltt.irling \\ its t1()t gire tt to tltc tttcrtrl;crs ltntl in thOSc circttltlstenccs, thtif irl) Ilc ir Is $crt' rtllorYc<1. f hc I lousing SocirtV lrting ;rggrier-cti irr tltc lrlilttcl' .itrllr trll lrcli,l'. this Cotrrt ll' liling vrtri,tus rr rit pctitiorrs i.u., \\'.1).Nos..i57{, 5is3 602s, 6029,(t032 ancl 6053 ol20t)6. Bv comnron orclct datc(l 26.06.2006. thc lerrnctl Single Judge Court has disrnissed all the u'rit petitions. The learncd Single Jr.rclge has atrived at a finding o[' lacrt that opportunit,v was not givcn to the rnernbers and in thosc circurnstanccs, the order of the Tribunal was upheld. Libertl'u,as also granted to the Societv to irsl; lor such inlormation as required under the 1as'from its rnernbers. The Societt'has tl'rcleafter, preferred the present Writ Appcals, rvhich \\,cre clisrnissed br. thc I)ivision Ilerrch lry Conrmor-r Juclgrlent <leted 27,09.2006. Subse qucntlr. r('\-l ir \\' applic:ttions s'cre filccl rvith sonre rlclar'. J his 7 Court has clismissecl thc epplic:rtions tllr corrdon:ltion ol clclrrl Irr' <'olnnron ortlcr tl;rtccl 09.07.2007.'l'ht' s:ritl rrrtlcr rrrrtls'.1s rrnclrr: "\\ . A. \ [. ]).\lo.96J of 1007 tk Ilcv. \\ .,\.\l.I' (SIt).No.-l(r326 ol' 2007, \Y'..,\.NI. P.No.962 ol 2007 & Ito'.\\i.A. \ I. P (SR).No. 1607 1 o i' 2007, \Y.A.NI.P.No.965 of 2007 & Rer'.W.A.NI.P (SR).No.16068 of 2007, \\r.A.l\'LP.No.970 of 2007 & Rev. \Y'.A.ILP (SR).No,46065 of 2007, W.A.M.P.No.969 of 2006 & Rev. W.A.M.P.No.46822 of 2007., W.A,N'LP.No.963 of 2007 & Rev. r\ 20 Shri \{. Ramakanth for Shri D.V.Bhadram for the applicanrs. Shri Srinivas Polavarapu for non-applicant No.2. \roltas Enrployecs Cooperative House IluiIding Socict,v Linrireil rrnd another lrarvc llled petitiorrs r-rnder Order XLVII Ilulc 1ol rht () Corlc ,rl' Ci\'il Proccritrrc lbI rcvierv of c0tt.tlrlott itrdgrll('nt (littc(l l;,09.11:)()(, prtssttl itr \\'rit .\PPcal Nrts gj'l ro 979 of 20i)6 'l he| hirvc rrlrir lllcrl \\...\.1[.P.Nos.9(;]. 965. 9;(). 96+, 969 rurtl 96.1 ,rl'2()07 trnclcr \(,(rir,n i oi tlrc I - i I r r i t I t r i r I I I .\t r lirr crltltlotliit irltt ot 9')' 7l' ll"l' 1l I' 110 .rlrtl l-l-J Ll:Lr .' tlcl,lr . \,rrr-irctitiorrc'r' No.-Z lras illctl at'fidrrvit irr \\ 'A \l l)'No 96"l ol l1)Ul r,r r.,r,rt,,rt tl," llritt cr tl-trttle llv tltt rcvitrv pctitiolrers for cortrlo tlit iott of de lav. Slrri Srinivas Polln'arrpr-t s2lvs thitt the afilcl;rvit llled in \!.A.I\{. ]'.No.9 64 ol'200'7 may be read in other cascs :rs s'cll' In the afflclavit filed bv him, Shri K Srinivasa [{ao' Secretan' ol' Voltzts Enrptoyees Cooperative Hotrse Btrildir-rg Societv Limited hus averrc<l that after receiving CoPy of jr.rdgment dated 27.09.2006 on L8.01.2007, he consr.rlted his advocate and decided to file revicr'v pctitions. In paragraphs 5 and 6, he has detailed the reasons for his inabilitv to fii" ..ui.* petitions within limitation' These paragraphs rc lr<l as u tr cle r: ,,5. ln this connectiOn, I subrnit that as rnv fIrther-in-larv u'rts srtffering from cancer tt GT stro Enteric Junction sitrce lzrst seck ol Dccember 2006 and I had to attend on hirn for trclltrnent. He has rlso sttffcrcd a He'trt Attack in the month of N{rrrclr 200?. As strch, mvsclf ancl mv lvilc l)irle to atte n(l to hirn ort irll tltese ditvs alld in srtch circttmstltllce s I corrlcl nrtl lraucl oYcr tlte pirpcrs t{) aIr Aclvocatc trl filc tllc Re'l'ies I'etitiotr i1) this r.gard itlrrrrtd i,ttclv after rcccipt of thc ttrder cop\' ()n 1S 1 2007' I Irrrr tr cr, irr thc trrontlt ttl fiellntitn 20l)7 tlrc Nlrrrragirtg (lorrtrtittec ,rt tlrc Socicn disctlsscd tllrcitcl-llarc tlrc orcle r dt' l- {) ll)(}6 (rt ceirctl {)n lc.l.2l)();) arttl rcst,lrttl trr set li rt lt'grtl rrpirrirrrt irt rltc Itr.ttler. \lter 'rllitlrrrit to lti' 'orrrtstl Sri I Ir'rrl( rr(l,.rr),rtlr [l( (l.l\ ' ! I srrlrrrrit r.lrrtirtg tlrt 2 rrret'l< ol i\lrrtclt 201); Il( lritlscll issirt rl ttitliccs to tlrt L-x (-tlrttutittct \lclttltt:rt 'trtcl srtttgllt ( \l)liLllltlioll lrrttn (lrctrl irl etttrttcttiorr 11 j111 651'ltltrge rtl socict\ le,il.l ,t'irh rrcighborrrirtg sotiett'. Ilc itlso issttctl rtgutrtl'a lirr c,tlling Ocncritl Boclv Noticc hcltl on 3103 2007 antl hc itcttri'rllv prrrticiprtted irt tlrc drtv-to-tlilv affairs ()f the society rrnd also thc b.n.r,il Boclv Nlecting lrr:ld on 31.0.1 2007 TIrr: rbove ficts rcvcirl that the Prcscnt Sccretrlrv filcd thc abovc revic$'pctiti()11 .,r'ith atl falsc pleas without anv 1>roof. Moretlvcr the Managing Committec cxists and is headcd by Presiclent, Vice-Pres iclent, Secretary, Trcasurer and other Committec Nltmbers' In the abscnce of Secretary the President is cmporveretl to file the above revierv petition as per Sec.9 of APCS Act zrnd as per Bye- La*'s of Sociery. Moreover thc Prescnt Secret'.rry h:rs not filcd thc Managirrg Committee Resoltttion saicl to have becn p:rssed in favour of deponent in Revies' Pctition to file thc rtbove revierv pctition and his authoriziltion to Pllrsue thc above Inattcr. No rclcvant rlocurnents filed to provc thc dclav in filing the abovc rcr-icrr' petition. " 1(1 We have heald learned counsel for the partics atrd perrrscd the rcco rd, It is true that the judicial pronouncements of trvo clecades are indicative of [iberal appioach adopted by the Courts in dealing s'ith tl-re applications for condonation of delay, but in the facts of this case, rvc have not felt persuaded to accept the explanation given on behalf of the appellants fot not filing the revie.,v petitions within tlre time. Shri K. Srinivasa Rao has not filed rejoinde r-affid avit to controvelt the avermellls contained in the af{ldavit of respondent No. 2- Chitti Visrvam. Thereforc, the re is nor rcason lor us to discirld ttrc assertion of respondenr No. 2 that the representarive of the Pctirioner had pcrsonallv zrppeared before tl-re learnecl Single Judge on 15.12.2006 :rncl niade the argurnents in V'rit Pc-tition No. 779{ o[ 2004 ancl t]rirt in the rnonth ol I\larch 2007, he had hinrseli scn,ed legul nolicr' anci participatecl irr the rlet:ting ol rhe gcncnrl boclv orr .]1.0.i.1007. I'hc iltiltrle of Shri K. Slinilrsa Rao to lilc rt-'plr' rr) rhc c,rrrrrcl r.rl' rcsl;r.rnclcnt No.2 shris s that thc cxplanatiorr ollcrecl br lrirn Iriclis crcclil;ilitv an<l thc ailme rrr ,rf his tather'-in-llr*' h;rs bccrr cirrrorrl);Lqcrl to canr s\'rrrpatlrv ol tlre Corrrt. lor the [eirsol)s stirtcd al)ovc, \\].A.\I.Ps. art: disnrissrtl. W.A.lI.P.(SR). Nos. 46826, 16071, 16068, -16065, -16ii2l :rrrcl .16819 of 2007 m21v no\\, be listed before the Coutt on 30.07 .2007 ." I'his Court, u,hile disn'rissing the appLications lor condonrrtion of delay, has categoricalll'held that the explanation offered in the rnatter l:rclts credibilirl and the zrilment of f:rtl-re r-in-Iarv has been carnouflagcd to e rrrn s),mpathy of the Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Divisiorr Bencl'r rvas certainly jrrstified in dismissing the applications lor condonation of (lela\. Othenvisc also, libcrtv s'as granted to the Societf in the rnattcr l)\' the lcarnecl Singlc Jrrd.gt:. 'I'hcrcutiet, Ihc rcvieu, applit'ations u,cre rc jccr ctl on 07. 1 l.]008 Aguin, tl)e presclrt app[cations be ing [.A.\o.2 o1' 20()9 lr:rlt' br.cn prel-erred in the r-ear 2009 for rccall of c()mnlon ortlcr clated 07.11.2008 11 plrssed in tl-re rvrit appeals. These appLications are again barrcd bv limitation It is unfortunare thxt even zrfrcr dismissal of the revie$' Pctitions, succcssive rccall pctitions arc being filec1 bv thc Socicn in a clisposecl of n1'.tttcr Al'rrr illing rccrtll petitions in the I'car 2009, no stePs har c Lrten takctt ii,r li.ting ol tltt's:ttuc rill 2022. I lrt re i* r)() error al)l)2trent rttl tlrc f:rce ol'tlle tcr:ortl \\':\rritl)tlllg rellc\\ ol' tlrc tn:tttcr undcr:- "13.ln order to dpprecidte tlte scope of a rertieu, Section 114 CPC bas to be reatl, bii this section does not eaen adumbrate tbe ambit of interferetrce expected of tbe court since it n'tereb' states thdt it 'imay tnake sucb order tbereon as it tbinks fit". The paranreters are pt'es'cribed in Order 17 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, perntit 'tbc dcfendant to Press for a rebearinS "on accotott of sorne mistake ,, ,rro, appareitt on tbe face ol' tbe records or for dn! otber str.fficie trt ,iito,r". Tbc fonner part of tbe n e dedls u'ith a sitrration aiiribtttal,le to tl)e dpplicdnt, and the latter ttt a jrtral action abiclt is rrani.festlf incorrect or o 'i!hich trL'o conclt$iotts (tre not possiblc' .\'eitl:cr o]'tl-turt p0slttlcttc a rt'btaring o.l'tlte disptttc becattsc t1 ldrtl' i.t,rLl trot ltigt lighted dll tl:e ,tspt'cls ol'tht' ta:c or cottld ptrl'tps l.',rt't: rrrgttctl (btnt ntorc lbrcliiLt' ,rnLlt'rtr titcl l'irtdirts prec't'dutt: t() li;c t'otttt nrrd li:t'rc'lr) enjo1'cd ,r l',t'-'otrrt tlt' '''ct ilict "l'l.tis i: nntpl\ L'L'idcttt .front tlsc I:tpltrrtatirtn to Ilrt!t t ol Orler 17 i;:lticlt sr,rits tl-,ar rlte firct rbat tbe dacisirtn on t qrreslirttt of lta on obiclt rllc jutlsnterrt oJ' tbe col.l.t is based bas been r(''-'crsed or nodi.l'ietl b1' tbe srrb:eqrrott decision ol'(t silperilr cutrt in an)t otber cttse, sbdll not bc d grotrnd for tlte reoiea of nch judgtrtettt. Wl)ete the order irr rlr,testion is appealable the aggrietted party has adequate and 'fhe Apcx court in the casc of Haridas Das r'. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) ancl Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78 in paragraph 13 and 20 has held "ts ll efiicociorts remedl, and the court sbould excrcise tlte pouer to rclie,;t' its ordcr t'itb tl:e greatesl cirutntspec tiort. 7'his Cottrt in Thrmgabhadrtt Indrrstrics [,td, v, Got't, of ;1,P,1 held as foLlo;s: (SCR p. t85) "[l'Jbere is a distirtctiott u'bicb i: rcal, tl'.tor.tgl.t it tnight rrot tl-,;tt\': be ctpaltlc oJ c.tposition, betaccn a t crc (\'t ont'orts dcci:iort rtrrd ,r tlecisiott tltich corrld bc cbaracteriscd as titiated lrr, 't'rror dppdre t'. A reviea is b,- rro me(/ s (ot appcdl in disgtrise ultr:rcbt' dn erroneous decisiott is reheard atd correctccl, but lies ortll' Jitr pttte t error. ... where r;titltott any elaborate drgumeltt one corid point to tbe error and say bere is a subst(tnti.tl point of la'a whicb stctres one in tbe face, and tbere could reasonably be no two opinions entertained dboli it, a clear cdse of error dppttrent on the face of tbe record wotid be made out." 20.'Vhen the aforesaid principles are dpplied to tbc background facx of tbe present cdse, the position is clear that tbe Higb Cowrt bad clearly fallen in error in accepting the prayer for reaiew. First, the crucial question uhich according to the Higb Court was necess{lry to be adjr,tdicated was the question wbetber Title Suit No. 2a1 of 1985 (sic l of 1986) wasbarredby the proaisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, This question arose in Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 and uas irreletartt so fdr as Title Suit No.2 of 1987 is concerned. Additionally, tbe lTigl: Court erred in bolding tbat no pratcr for leate rnder Ordcr 2 liule 2 CPC .aas nmdc in tlse plairrt irt -I itlc Srrir r\b. 2Cl of 198t. Tbe claint of oral agrecrnent ddtcd t9-s.1982. is nentioncd in pdrd 7 of tltc plairtt, ard at tl:c atd ol'tl,e p;,rirtt it ltas bcctt noted tbdt ti;e ri.gl.tl