1 APHC010314392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY fp TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V! \o PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1481 OF 2025 Petition under Section 115 of CPC, aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.242 of 2015 in AS.No.09 of 2007 dated 07.04.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. Between: R/o. R.S. A.Prabavathamma, W/o. Papaiah, Aged about 59 years Rangapuram (v), Bethamcherla (M), Kurnool District A. Papaiah, S/o A. Rangaiah, aged about 63 years, Rangapuram (v), Bethamcherla (M), Kurnool District 1. R/o. R.S. 2. ...Petitioners/Petitioners/ Appellants AND Soda Shaik Moulali (died). Rep.by his LRs Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 R/o. Kalva (v), Orvakal (M) 1. S/o. Osman Miah, Aged 65 years Kurnool District. Smt. Ahmed Bee, W/o Soda Shaik Moulali, Aged 67 years, R/o. Kalva 2. (v), Orvakal (M), Kurnool District. S.Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Late S. Venkata Thirupal, Aged 49 years, R/o. Kalva (v), Orvakal (M), Kurnool District S.Lakshmi Devi, S/o Late S. Venkata Thirupal, Aged 31 years, R/o. Kalva (v), Orvakal (M), Kurnool District 3. 4. r 5. S.Surendranath Babu, S/o Late S. Venkata Thirupal, Aged 29 years, R/o. Kalva (v), Orvakal (M), Kurnool District 6. S.Janaradhana, S/o. S.V. Thirupalu, Aged about 27 years, R/o.Kalva (v), Orvakal (M), Kurnool District 7. S.Venkatamma, w/o. Naganna, District. 8. SK Fathima, D/o Late Soda Shaik Moulali, Aged about 66 years, R/o. Kalva (v), Orvakal (M), Kurnool District 9. Shaik Salimoon, D/o Late Soda Shaik Moulali, Aged about 59 years. R/o.Kalva (v), Orvakal (M), Kurnool R/o.Kalva (v), Orvakal (M), Kurnool District. lO.Gounda Shajahan Bee, D/o Late Soda Shaik Moulali, Aged 55 years, R/o.Kalva (v), Orvakal (M), Kurnool District. 11. Shaik Khajapeer, S/o. Late Soda Shaik Moulali, Aged about 52 years, R/o. Kalva (v), Orvakal (M), Kurnool District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Bugulu Sreeteja, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.Rajasekhar, Advocate The Court made the following order: f' APHC010314392025IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the twenty second day of August, Two Thousand Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1481 of 2025 [3311] Between: ...Petitioners A. Prabavathamma and others and ...Respondents Soda Shaik Moulali (died) rep. by L.Rs Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Bugulu Sreeteja Counsel for the respondents: I.P.Rajasekhar 2.Nil The Court made the following order: r 2 f BSB, J C.R,P.No.1481 of 2025 ORDER: This matter is listed under the caption “For being mentioned” since there is an error in the final order, dated 29.07.2025, wherein the number in the title of the trial Court was incorrectly noted as ‘Vr instead of ‘IV’. However, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the respondents No.2, 8 to 11 submitted that the revision petition had been disposed of without hearing him. Since his name had not been published in the daily cause list, dated 29.07.2025, as he had filed the vakalat a day before. Hence, the order, dated 29.07.2025, was recalled and the matter was re-heard on 21.08.2025 and the following order has been passed afresh. This revision petition is filed under section 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 07.04.2025, dismissing I.A.No.242 of 2015 in A.S.No.09 of 2007 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Kurnool filed by the revision petitioners under Order XLI, Rule 3A of C.P.C. and section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 401 days in filing the application under Order XLI, Rule 19 C.P.C. to set aside the order dismissing the appeal for default on 20.04.2015. 2. The petitioners contended that the appeal had been posted to 25.02.2014 for arguments, but, due to non-advancement of arguments, the appeal was dismissed, however, the petitioners had come to know about the order of dismissal on 20.04.2015, when the petitioner No.2 had met his counsel in the Court premises and got verified about the case and then the file had been taken back with the assistance of Sri Ramanjaneyulu, 3. t' 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1481 of 2025 advocate and colleague to the counsel for the appellants / petitioners. It was further stated that their counsel could not argue the matter due to ill-health and the same was not intimated to the parties. The petition was opposed by the respondents No.2, 8 to 11 by filing counter denying the averments in the petition. The respondents No.1 and 2 are the claimants and the appeal was filed against the order passed in the claim petition in an execution petition. The other respondents are the judgment debtors and they remained ex parte. The respondent No.7 died. After hearing the contesting parties, the appellate Court dismissed the petition not believing the version of the petitioners / appellants. Even the affidavit of Sri Ramanjaneyulu filed in support of the petitioners was also not considered positively. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. When notices were sent to the parties, no notice was served on the parties / respondents, but, notice sent to the learned counsel for the respondents No.2, 8 to 11 was served. As such, appearance has been made for respondents No.2, 8 to 11. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents No.2, 8 to 11. 4. 5. 6. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appellate Court was over influenced by the fact of the long pendency of the matter as the case was filed in the year 2007 and there was delay of 401 days in filing the petition to restore the appeal and further the petition was finally disposed of in the year 2025. As such, the learned counsel for revision petitioners r 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1481 of 2025 submitted that the petitioners deserve due consideration of the reasons assigned by them for the delay of 401 days and not for any other delay. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the reasons stated for the cause of delay are not sufficient. He further submitted that the delay occurred as the petitioner failed to enquire his counsel is not a ground to condone the delay and that the appellant had not advanced arguments in the application to condone delay for seven (7) long years and even after filing the petition, it was kept pending for ten (10) years. His arguments are in consonance with the reasons stated by the appellate Court in the impugned order. 8. 9. As rightly contended by the revision petitioners, the burden of the petitioners is only to explain the delay for 401 days with reasonable cause. In support thereof, the petitioners not only relied on mere statements but also affidavit of Sri Ramanjaneyulu. On consideration of such evidence which was not put to cross- examination by the contesting respondents by calling the witness, and the statements in the affidavit which are not shown to be false in any manner, this Court is of the opinion that the reason for the delay has been duly explained by the petitioners. The delay caused for seven (7) years after filing of the appeal cannot be solely attributed to the revision petitioners as it is a common knowledge that several cases are pending before the Courts for various reasons, such as, huge number of pending matters, priority given to old cases, interlocutory applications. Though the contesting respondents had an opportunity of pointing out, specifically from the steps noted on the docket, to show whether 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1481 of 2025 the revision petitioners are at fault to cause the delay in hearing of the appeal, it is not correct to attribute the whole period of the delay to the appellants. Similarly, even for the period of pendency of interlocutory application, there must be a specific finding from the record by the trial Court, while passing the order in I.A.No.242 of 2015, as to whether the petitioners were responsible for pendency of the said application for such a long period. In the absence of any such observations, the appellate Court erroneously held the petitioners alone responsible for the whole period of delay without substantiating such remarks with reference to the steps noted on the file. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside for not properly appreciating the evidence on record. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 07.04.2025, dismissing I.A.No.242 of 2015 in A.S.No.09 of 2007 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Kurnool is set aside and the petition in I.A.No.242 of 2015 is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay the contesting respondents Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. 10. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to Bugulu Sreeteja, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P.Rajasekhar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GPC vna HIGH COURT DATED: 29/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1481 OF 2025 3 0 AUG 2025 o ALLOWING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION