AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nyapathy Vijay, J
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 07.09.2017 in I.A.No.1689 of 2014 in O.S.No.72 of 2007 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District.
The Petitioner is the Plaintiff. The suit was filed for declaration of title and cancellation of Sale Deed dated 11.03.1982 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The Plaintiff claimed the schedule property under a registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 09.03.2007 executed by his own brother B. Rama Subba Reddy and had taken possession of the schedule property. It was further pleaded that the donor B. Rama Subba Reddy had purchased the schedule property under a registered Sale Deed dated 06.06.1974 from one B. Pitchi Reddy and others. As the defendants are claiming the schedule property pursuant to a registered Sale Deed dated 08.05.1979 from M. Salamma and her children, the suit was filed.
Though the defendants filed their written statement, the suit was dismissed for non-representation on 22.04.2014. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed I.A.No.1689 of 2014 to condone the delay of 150 days in seeking to set-aside the default order.
The reason given by the Petitioner was that he could not attend the Court on account of ‘jaundice’. The Respondents filed their counter opposing the claim and that there was no medical proof to establish his ill-health. The trial Court after considering the respective contentions dismissed the application on the ground that no material was placed to establish the illness and relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Dr. Damarla Savithri vs. Kande Sreenivasulu 2015 (1) ALT 576.
Heard Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned counsel for the Respondents.
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the suit being one for declaration of title, a liberal approach should be adopted by the Courts and more so in this case as the delay is not substantial.
The counsel for the Respondents contended that no medical record was filed to establish the illness and supported the order of the trial Court and contended that there is no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. It was further contended that the impugned order was passed on 07.09.2017 and the Revision was filed on 14.06.2021 after lapse of nearly four years and no explanation was given for the delay.
Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the explanation offered by the Petitioner to condone the delay cannot be accepted as ‘jaundice’ cannot said to have debilitating effect on the Petitioner so as to render him bedridden for almost six months. Further, no medical certificate was filed by the Petitioner to substantiate the same.
Secondly, as rightly contended by the counsel for the Respondents, impugned order was passed in September, 2017 and the Revision was filed in June, 2021 i.e. after lapse of four years though there is absolutely no explanation for this delay by the Petitioner. Thirdly, the suit was filed seeking to cancel the Sale Deed of the year 1982 after lapse of 25 years and this Court is of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to set-aside the default order and permit the suit to proceed at this length of time.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.