Gade Chakrapani vs Mamidala Raju

Aggrieved by the order, dated 26.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.518 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.58 of 2016 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 by the learned Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/ defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. None appeared for the respondent No.1.

The learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo dated 03.02.2023 vide USR No.24176 and stated that respondent No.2 herein, who is the mother of the petitioners herein died on 03.04.2020.

The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of dealing with the present case are that the respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff has filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction against the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said suit was numbered as O.S.No.206 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. As the petitioners/defendants did not file their written statement, their right was forfeited and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 27.01.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.299 of 2014 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside ex parte decree dated 27.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.206 of 2013 and the said I.A was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2015 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Thereupon the petitioners have filed C.M.A before the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, and the said C.M.A was numbered as 58 of 2016 and the said CMA was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2019 by setting aside the orders passed in I.A.No.299 of 2014 with a condition that the petitioners/defendants shall deposit the suits costs before the trial Court within a period of thirty (30) days. As per the conditional order passed in C.M.A.No.58 of 2016, the petitioners were supposed to deposit the suit costs within thirty(30) days before the trial Court. It is pertinent to note that the suit in O.S.No.206 of 2013 was filed by the respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff after paying a Court fee of Rs.786/- but the said suit was decreed ex parte with costs quantified at Rs.1,984/-. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed a memo vide SR No.2739/2019 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, duly depositing an amount of Rs.786/- towards the suit costs on 12.06.2019 i.e, beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. Thereafter, another memo was filed by the petitioners herein before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, to restore the suit and the said memo was returned on 04.08.2021 on the ground that the suit costs of Rs.1,984/- was not deposited within the prescribed period as ordered in C.M.A.No.58/2016. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A under Section 148 of CPC vide S.R.No.3965/2021 dated 25.08.2021 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, praying to enlarge the time granted for depositing the suit costs and to permit them to remit the actual suit costs of Rs.1,984/- and that they have inadvertently deposited the amount of Rs.786/- instead of Rs.1,984/-. The said I.A was also returned at the S.R stage on 28.08.2021 stating that the petition is not maintainable before the said Junior Civil Judge Court. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A under Section 148 read with Section 151 of CPC before the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, vide S.R.No.1344/2021 on 06.09.2021 praying the Court to permit them to remit the suit costs of Rs.1,984/- by extending the time from 05.06.2019 to 12.06.2019 i.e, with a delay of 8 days. Initially, the said petition was returned by the Court’s Section on 09.09.2021, 18.09.2021 with some office objections and the same was represented on 09.09.2021 and 20.09.2021. Thereafter, the matter was ordered to be called on bench on 27.09.2021 for hearing and numbered as I.A.No.518 of 2021. The Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, has dismissed the said I.A.No.518 of 2021 on the ground that the petitioners were not diligent in depositing the suit costs within the time prescribed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the calculation of the suit costs was done by the counsel appearing in the lower Court and inadvertently, the petitioner thought that the Court fee amount of Rs.786/- was directed to be deposited and they have deposited the same in the Court but not the actual suit costs of Rs.1,984/-. The learned counsel has stated that the delay of 8 days ought to have been condoned by the appellate Court duly taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances but the said I.A was dealt with in a mechanical and pedantic manner and therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Hon’ble Court to allow the present Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 26.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.518 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.58 of 2016 by the learned Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, and permit the petitioners to deposit the amount of Rs.1,984/-.

Admittedly, as seen from the record, the petitioners were served with a certified copy of the order dated 07.03.2019 passed in CMA No.58 of 2016 by the learned Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, on 04.05.2019. Thereafter, they have deposited the amount of Rs.786/- on 07.06.2019 i.e, with a delay of few days. Though the appellate Court has stated that the petitioners were not diligent in depositing the suit costs within the time prescribed, the appellate Court has lost sight of the fact that the petitioners were diligent in depositing the Court fee amount of Rs.786/- but not actual suit costs. The explanation submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to the miscalculation done by the counsel appearing before the trial Court, actual suit costs of Rs.1,984/- could not be deposited and that it was not deliberate appears to be genuine reason. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases has time and again held that where the substantial rights of the parties are involved, the Court should be very lenient while dealing with the procedural defects and irregularities, which are curable and they should not be allowed to defeat the substantive rights of the parties or cause injustice. The depositing of the amount of Rs.786/- shows the bonafides of the petitioners in depositing the amounts as ordered by the Court in C.M.A.No.58/2016, even though the amount deposited is Rs.786/- but not the actual suit costs of Rs.1984/-. The situation may have been different had the petitioner not deposited any amount.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.518 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.58 of 2016 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 by the appellate Court, is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.518 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.58 of 2016 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 by the learned Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.518 of 2021 is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to deposit the suit costs of Rs.1,984/- before the trial Court within a period of three (03) weeks from today. Further, the petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) to the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal, within a period of three (03) weeks from today. On payment of aforesaid costs by the petitioners, the suit in O.S.No.206 of 2013 shall be restored to its original file. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2013, the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps for disposal of the main suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (06) months. It is also made clear that the petitioners herein shall cooperate for the disposal of the said suit without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.