HTCDS,J CRP_2497_2019 1 APHC010787282017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2497/2019 Between: Ardhala Siva Ramaiah Died and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bheemavarapu Siva Parvathi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM The Court made the following: HTCDS,J CRP_2497_2019 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2497 OF 2019 ORDER:- 1. The present revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 28.04.2017 passed in IA No.854 of 2012 in OS No.108 of 2007, on the file of XII Additional District Judge-cum- Family Court, Guntur. 2. The petitioners are defendants in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance based on agreement of sale dated 30.08.2006 executed by the petitioners/defendants. The petitioners contested the suit by filing the written statement. 3. When the matter is posted for cross-examination of PW-1, the petitioners/defendants did not prosecute the suit and thereby they were set ex-parte on 29.12.2009. On coming to know about the ex-parte order dated 29.12.2009, the petitioners/defendants filed three (03) interlocutory applications vide I.A.No.117, 118 & 119 of 2010 seeking to reopen, recall and to set aside the ex-parte order dated 29.12.2009. All the applications filed by the petitioners/defendants were heard and HTCDS,J CRP_2497_2019 3 dismissed by order dated 15.03.2010. Further, the Trial Court decreed the suit in OS No.108 of 2007 on the same day i.e., on 15.03.2010. The Trial Court further directed the respondent/plaintiff to deposit the balance sale of consideration to the credit of the suit within fifteen (15) days from the date of Judgment by further directing the petitioners/defendants to execute sale deed within a period of one (01) month from the date of Judgment. 4. It is further case of the petitioners that their counsel did not inform them that the applications they filed in I.A.Nos.117, 118 and 119 of 2010 were dismissed and they were also not informed about the decree that was passed on 15.03.2010. It is further case of the petitioners that during the first week of April, 2012 they came to know through the villagers that the Court is going to register the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent. 5. It is further case of the petitioners that, in order to ascertain the said fact, they approached their Advocate and verified that Court passed a decree against them on 15.03.2010 and thereafter they also came to know that the respondent also HTCDS,J CRP_2497_2019 4 preferred Execution Petition against the petitioners/defendants and they filed interlocutory application vide I.A.No.854 of 2012 seeking to condone the delay of 770 days in filing an application to set aside ex-parte decree dated 15.03.2010 passed in OS No.108 of 2007. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter affidavit in the said application. The said application was dismissed by order dated 24.12.2012. Questioning the said order, the present revision petition is filed. 6. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioners contend that they were not informed about the dismissal of applications filed by them vide I.A.Nos.117, 118, 119 of 2010 and also the decree passed in the said suit on 15.03.2010. 7. It is pertinent to note that at every stage of the suit, the petitioners have received summons/notices. Further it is their case that after taking back the file from his earlier Advocate, they engaged the present counsel to file the present application. On perusal of the affidavit, it is clearly averred by the petitioners that they were not aware of the decree dated 15.03.2010 passed in the suit as the same was not informed by their counsel. The HTCDS,J CRP_2497_2019 5 affidavit is conspicuously silent with regard to as to what action they have initiated against their earlier counsel with regard to non-information of passing of decree in the suit. 8. On the other hand, the respondent contends that the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting the suit and after passing of decree dated 15.03.2010, she preferred execution petition vide EP No.146 of 2010 and in the said execution proceedings, the suit schedule property was also delivered in her favour on 12.02.2024 and it is the case of the respondent that at every stage including in execution proceedings, the petitioners were put on notice, despite service of notice, they did not choose to appear in the matter. 9. Admittedly, the petitioners have filed three (03) applications vide I.A.No.117, 118 & 119 of 2010 and the said applications were dismissed on 15.03.2010 and on the same day the suit was also decreed. Further the petitioners did not give any cogent reasons or plausible explanation to condone the delay of 770 days in filing set-aside application. Furthermore in spite of service of notice at all stages, the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting the case on hand, thereby the decree dated HTCDS,J CRP_2497_2019 6 15.03.2010 passed in the suit was also put to execution and in fact the suit schedule property was delivered to the respondent on 12.02.2024 vide E.P.No.146 of 2010. 10. As already stated the petitioners did not properly explained the delay. On the other hand, it is averred that their earlier counsel did not informed them about passing of the decree in the suit. As already observed nothing is placed on record to show that as to what action was initiated against their earlier counsel. In the absence of the same, the contention put forth by the petitioners cannot be believed. 11. The counsel for the petitioners relied on Judgment reported in “Surendra G.Shankar & another Vs. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd., & others”1, whereunder, it was held as follows: “9. This we say so because the scope of the appeal before the High Court was limited to examining the correctness of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai declining condonation of delay. Only when the delay is condoned, the merits of the order could be examined by the Appellate Court.” 1 Civil No.928 of 2025, dt.22.01.2025 HTCDS,J CRP_2497_2019 7 12. The case law relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand inasmuch as the facts in that case are totally different. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025 in the matter of H.Guruswamy & others Vs. A.Krishnaiah2, held as under:- “13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District Judiciary as well the High Courts that the concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. 14. We are constrained to observe that the High Court has exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain while adjudicating a lis between the parties. 15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. 16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the Court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the Court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking 2 Civil No.317 of 2025 HTCDS,J CRP_2497_2019 8 condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoining the delay.” 14. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Further as per the said judgment it is the duty of the Court to see that unless sufficient cause is shown the delay cannot be condoned on mere asking. 15. In the instant case, the decree dated 15.03.2010 was put to execution and the suit schedule property was registered in favour of the petitioner and the same was delivered to the respondent. Despite service of notices at all stages, the petitioners did not choose to contest the case with due diligence and thereby they have lost their right over the subject matter. Further absolutely, there is no plausible explanation offered by the petitioners to condone the delay. 16. In view of the aforementioned reasons, there are no merits in the revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as costs. As sequal, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 24.02.2025 DR HTCDS,J CRP_2497_2019 9 222 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.2497 of 2019 Date 24.02.2025 DR