AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present applications arise out of A.S. No.1036 of 2017. Vide order dated 09.01.2025, the learned Coordinate Bench allowed I.A. No.1 of 2024, which was filed seeking restoration of A.S. No.1036 of 2017 by setting aside the order dated 18.07.2024, whereby the appeal was dismissed for default
The aforesaid application was allowed subject to the petitioner/appellant paying costs of Rs.50,000/- to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority within a period of ten (10) days from the date of the said order and, upon furnishing a copy of the receipt evidencing such payment, the Registry was directed to restore A.S. No.1036 of 2017 to its original file. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner has filed the receipt dated 18.01.2025 evidencing payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority.
I.A. No.2 of 2024 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the application for restoration of A.S. No.1036 of 2017. The learned Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 09.01.2025, allowed the said application and condoned the delay of 105 days in filing the restoration application.
Thereafter, respondent No.1 in the main appeal filed I.A. No.1 of 2025 in I.A. No.1 of 2024 in A.S. No.1036 of 2017, seeking review/recall of the order dated 09.01.2025. Vide order dated 28.04.2025, the learned Coordinate Bench allowed the said application and recalled the order dated 09.01.2025, observing that the application seeking condonation of delay had not been taken up for hearing
It is, however, relevant to note that there was no application filed seeking review or recall of the order dated 09.01.2025 in respect of I.A. No.2 of 2024, whereby the delay of 105 days in filing the restoration application was condoned. Thus, the order dated 09.01.2025 passed in I.A. No.2 of 2024 had attained finality.
In this regard, the observation made by the learned Coordinate Bench in the order dated 28.04.2025, to the effect that the application for condonation of delay had not been taken up for hearing, is factually incorrect, inasmuch as I.A. No.2 of 2024 was specifically considered and allowed by the learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 09.01.2025, thereby condoning the delay of 105 days in filing the restoration application.
It is also relevant to note that, while recalling the order dated 09.01.2025, the learned Coordinate Bench took note of the fact that respondent No.1, who was the original owner of the suit schedule property, had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No.25887 of 2024, challenging the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in A.S. No.1036 of 2017 dismissing the appeal for default. It was also noticed that SLP (C) No.25888 of 2024 had been filed challenging the order dated 18.06.2024 relating to dismissal of Cross-Objection No.47 of 2023.
The learned counsel for the KL,J&SKS,J A.S. No.1036 of 2017 petitioner has specifically contended that, though the counsel appearing for the petitioner is also representing respondent No.2, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are claiming independent and separate rights over the subject property. According to the learned counsel, the said aspect can appropriately be considered at the time of hearing of the main appeal.
Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, and inasmuch as I.A.No.2 of 2024 was allowed vide order dated 09.01.2025, condoning the delay of 105 days in filing the restoration application, the said order has not been independently reviewed or recalled. Therefore, I.A. No.2 of 2024 stands closed.
I.A. No. 1 of 2024 was filed for restoration of the appeal. Respondent No.1 had instituted O.S. No.13 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, against the petitioner seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2017, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as defendant No.2 before the trial Court, preferred A.S. No.1036 of 2017. The petitioner claims rights in respect of the suit schedule property and seeks adjudication of the same in the appeal.
Having regard to the nature of the dispute, the rival claims of the parties and the fact that the rights of the parties in respect of the suit schedule property are required to be adjudicated in the appeal on merits, this Court is of the view that the appeal deserves to be restored to its original file.
In view of the aforesaid submission and having regard to the circumstances of the case, I.A. No.1 of 2024 is allowed and A.S. No.1036 of 2017 is restored to its original file. As discussed supra, I.A. No. 2 of 2024 stands closed.