IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3194 OF 2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1046 OF 2010 Between: 1. Sarojamma, Wo Late Chandra Reddy, Occ: Cooli, aged about 62 years. 2. Venkateshwaramma, Wo Raghuvardhan Reddy, Cooli, aged about 35 years 3. Gangamma, Wo Venkateshwar Reddy, Cooli, aged aboul2T years All are R/o Koppunur Village, Veepanagandla (M), N/ahabubnagar District. ...PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS AND 1. Ulpala Laxmidevamma, W/o Ramaswamy Reddy, Occ. Agriculture, aged about 62 years. 2. Govindu Laxmidevamma, Wo Narasimha Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, aged about 47 years. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay 248 days in filing restoration petition in C.R.P. No. 1046/2010 and pass such other order or orders which are necessary in the interest of justice. FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CRPMP NO: 7't69 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1046 OF 2010 AND CRPMP NO: 7169 OF 2011 IN Petition under Section 115 of CPC to revise the order dated 0711212009 made in 1.A.No.344 and 345/2008 in O.S No 98/2000 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Kollapur. Between: 1. Sarojamma, Wo Late Chandra Reddy, Occ: Cooli, aged about 62 years. 2. Venkateshwaramma, Wo Raghuvardhan Reddy, Occ. Cooli, aged about 35 years, R/o. Seripally Village, Veepanagandla Mandal, MBNR District. 3. Gangamma, Wo Venkateshwar Reddy, Cooli, aged about 27 years P1 and P3 are R/o Koppunur Village, Veepanagandla (ltl), Ivlahabubnagar District. ...PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS AND 1. Ulpala Laxmidevamma, Wo Ramaswamy Reddy, Occ. Agriculture, aged about 62 years. 2. Govindu Laxmidevamma, Wio Narasimha Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, aged about 47 years. ...RESPONDENTSi RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. M. DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. N. VIJAY, Advocate The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER gLVL neVtsrON prrrfloNNo:3194oF2011 Both are R/o. Ayyawaripally Village, Veepanagandla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHUTARA REDDY CRPMP No.7169 of 2OLl In CML REVISION PETITION No.1O46 of 2O1O And CML REVISION PETITION No.3194 of 2O11 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed bv the petitioners/proposed 1egal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.2 assailing the common order dated 07.12.2OO9 in I.A.Nos.344 and 345 of 2008 in O.S.No.98 of 2O00 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur. 2. Revision petitioners have filed I.A.No.344 of 2008 to condone the delay of 8 days in filing an application to set aside the abatement caused in view of death of the deceased plaintiff No.2, whereas, I.A.No.345 of 2008 was filed to set aside the abatement caused in view of the death of plaintiff No.2. Learned Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur has dismissed both the applications through the common order dated 07.12.2OO9. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said common order, both these civil revision petitions are filed. CRP No.3194 of 20 1 1 is filed assailing the common orders in I.A.No.345 of 2008 and u,hereas, CRP No. 1046 of 2O10 is filed assailing the common orders in I.A.No.344 of 2008. Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of these two petitions through this common order Brief facts: 4. The plaintiffs have filed the original suit in O.S.No.98 of 2O00 for cancellation of registered gift settlement against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Both the defendants have filed their written statements on 15.10.2001, issues were settled on 16.07.2OO2 and the suit was being adjourned from time to time for trial since O8.1O.2OO2 onwards. While so, the trial Court has dismissed the suit for default on 22.1O.2OO8 after a gap of more than six years as the plaintiffs failed to pursue the matter. As per the order impugned in paragraph No.4 the learned Junior Civii Judge at Kollapur has made it clear that before dismissal of the suit a Memo d.ated, 23.OZ.2OOg AVR J CRPMP 7169 20ll InCRP 1046 2OtO& cRP 3194 2011 AVR..l CRPMP 7169 20ll InCRP 1046 2olo& cl.lP 3li)4 2r)rl Page -.i of 7 was filed by learned counsel for the plaintiff stating that plaintiff No.2 died but failed to take any steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.2 despitc granting ample opportunity, accordingly, the suit of thc plaintiff Nno.2 was abated on 22.O9.2OO8. Thereafter since the plaintiffs were not representing the matter, olt 22.10.2OO8 the suit was dismissed for default. 6. Be it stated that after settlement of the issues before the trial Court, almost more than six years time was given to the plaintiffs to proceed with trial but there was no attempt made by the plaintiffs to adduce evidence. Having preferred the civil revision petitions before this Court also q. In the supporting affidavits, hled in support of I.A.Nos.344 and 345 of 2008 it is simply mentioned that the petitioners went to Hyderabad for coolie work, they were not in contact with their counsel and as such, there was a delay and accordingly, prayed to condone the delay of 8 days and also to set aside the abatement caused in view of the death of deceased plaintiff No.2. AVR.J CRPMP 7169 20ll InCRP 10.16-20lO & cRP 3r94 2011 I'a8e I ol 7 the revision petitioners were not at ali prudent. Since there ."r,as no representation, CRP No. 1046 of 2O 10 was listt:d under the caption "for dismissal" and in-lact it was dismissed for default, thereafter restoration appiication is filed thus, CRI' No.1046 of 2010 was being listed under the caption for dismissal' from l4.06.2OIO onwards. Finally, it was dismissed for default. Thereafter, restoration application is llled and the same is pending. Accordingly, CRP No.1046 of 2010 is being listed along with CRP No.3 194 of 2O I 1 7 . Perused the averments in the supporting affidavits in restoration application and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing restoration application. Absolutely there are no merits, in-fact the said CRP No. 1046 of 2010 was dismissed for default on 02.12.2O1O and having filed the limitation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 248 days on 23.11.2021, the petitioners failed to pursue the matter. I do not {ind any merits in the contentions raised by the petitioners. I'age i of 7 8. In this context, I may refer to the principles laid by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and othersl wherein the Honble Supreme Court of India has summarized the principles while dealing with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and held that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, j ustice-oriented and non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay and at the same time, the concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free p1ay. If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the explanation are fanciful, the Courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such litigation. 9. Thus, when the facts ofcase on hand are tested on the touchstone of the principles laid by the Apex court in the above decision, the answer is in the negative. The ' 2013( t2) sct: 049 / AVR I CRPMP 7169 20ll InCRP 1046 20lO& cRP 3I94 20r I AVR J CRPMP 7169 2Oll InCRP 1046 2Ol0& cRP 3 t94 20l l l'ir!e 6 of7 petitioners ar(' not at all diligent at any time either before this Court or before the t rial Court. The explanations offered by the petitioners either in I.A.Nos.344 and 345 of 20O8 in O.S.No.9S of 2O00 or in the CRPMP No.7169 of 20 I I , filed u nder Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay are not genuine and appears to be fanciful. ln such circumstances, after two decades, the other side should not be unnecessarily exposed to face such litigation in respect of a suit Iiled in the year 2000. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the petitioners have failed to explain the delay indicated above to the satisfaction of the Court with sufficient causc. 10. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or jurisdictional error in the common order impugned dated 07.12.2OO9 in LA.Nos.344 and 345 of 2008 in OS No.98 of 2OOO. Similarly I do not find any merit in the request of the petitioners to condone the delay of248 days in filing an application to set aside the order dated 02.12.2O10 in CRp AVR.J CRPMP 7169 201t hCRP 104A 20tO& cRP 3rg4 )Ol l I)ase 7 of 7 No. 1046 of 2OlO, which was dismissed lor default on 02.12.20tO. 11. In the result, Civil Revision Petition No.3194 of 201 1 and CRPMP No.7169 of 2011 in CRP No.1046 of 201O are dismissed as devoid of merits. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stands closed. //TRUE COPY// '1 . The Junior Civil Judge at Kollapur, Mahabubnagar District. 2. One CC to Mr. M. DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] 3. Two CD Copies. Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSTSTANzEEGtSTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, njb tssR. HIGH COURT AVR,J DATED:1811112022 COMMON ORDER CRPMP.NO. 7169 0F 2011 IN cRP.NO.1046 0F 2010 AND CRP.No.3194 of 2011 DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT C'OSTS. 4 \./ .'{ .; STAI€ 2q,ttB s8 J Z c-, .L .4 -9: .lr nSSpAlC\l 4 g;s ,/ ( / I