IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.498 of 2011 Between: Masimukka Padma .. Petitioner AND Masimukka Veeramma .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.498 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri A. Abhishek Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.M.M. Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the dismissal of I.A.No.702 of 2010 in O.S.No.86 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Miryalguda, dated 22.12.2010. 3. The petition was for enlargement of time for filing the written statement by the defendant under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), alleging that the learned counsel appearing for the defendant before the trial Court misplaced the case file in his office and he could trace it only two days prior to the filing of the petition. The trial Court passed the impugned order noting that the written statement was not filed even after the mandatory period of 90 days and that after the defendant appeared before the Court through her counsel, the suit was adjourned on a number of occasions for filing the written statement. The trial Court considered that the circumstances mentioned in the decision cited before it were not relevant and that extraneous reasons cannot justify any request for enlargement of time. 4. The consequent dismissal of the petition and posting of the suit for plaintiff’s evidence led the aggrieved defendant to file the present revision contending that in fact, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, was on training due to which the case was being adjourned from time to time for the written statement after the date of first hearing. The revision petitioner contended that the jurisdiction should have been exercised by the trial Court in favour of condonation of delay under the circumstances. 5. The point for consideration is whether the delay is to be condoned. 6. The decision reported in NACHIPEDDI RAMASWAMY VS. P. BUTCHI REDDY[1] is relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner wherein the learned Judge held that the cardinal principle of interpretation of law is to read an entire enactment or entire section as a whole and such a construction would show that Sections 148 and 151 C.P.C. empower the Court to enlarge the time beyond what has been prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. as amended. The decision, thus, makes it clear that the civil Court, being a Court of equity, justice and good conscience, could avoid miscarriage of justice by exercising its inherent and jurisdictional powers under Sections 148 and 151 C.P.C. and orders passed in exercise of such sound discretion will not be subject to any further interference. 7. The revision petitioner herein was a rural lady who obviously believed her counsel to take care of her defence in accordance with law when she engaged him and the learned counsel himself gives his own affidavit stating that it was he who misplaced the case file in his office and who could trace it only two days prior to the filing of the petition to condone the delay. It is obvious from the affidavit that there was no delay attributable to the defendant herself in drafting or filing the written statement within the time prescribed by C.P.C. and for the lapses of the learned counsel, the innocent defendant need not suffer. Any inconvenience caused to the other side can be compensated by imposition of appropriate terms. 8. Accordingly, the order in I.A.No.702 of 2010 in O.S.No.86 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Miryalguda, dated 22.12.2010, will be set aside and the said I.A.No.702 of 2010 in O.S.No.86 of 2010 will be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff before this Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner paid the costs to the learned counsel for the respondent before the Court and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.702 of 2010 in O.S.No.86 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Miryalguda, dated 22.12.2010, is allowed without costs. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18th April, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.498 of 2011 Date: 18th April, 2011 KL [1] 2003 (4) ALD 648