> IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY. THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 750 OF 2019 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 25-02-2019 in lA No. 1241 of 2017 in O.S. No. 153 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Puttur. " Between: G. Gunasekhar Reddy, S/o. Munjrathnam Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Hindu, R/o. Thippinaidupali village, Devalampet Post, Vedurukuppam mandal, bhittoor District. . -V. iiv ...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND 1. P. Rajasekhar, S/o. P Jagannadha Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Hindu Occ: Cultivation and Business' ’ 2. P. Rama Murthy Reddy, S/o. Muni Reddy, Aged about 69 years, Hindu Occ: Cultivation and Business 3. P. Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Rama Murthy Reddy, Aged about 39 years Hindu, Occ: Cultivation and Btfsiness 4. P. Chandramouli Reddy. S/o. Venkatrama Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Hindu, Occ: Cultivation and Business 5. P. Purnachandra Reddy, S/o. VEnkatrama Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Hindu, Occ: Cultivation and Business * 6. P. Hemachandra Reddy, S/o.'Venkatrama Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Hindu, Occ: Cultivation and Business i i ' Wi- via -■'ii .i' f 7. C. Jayarami Reddy, S/o. Chengal Reddy, Aged about 59 years, Hindu, Occ: Cultivation and Business 8. P. Ananda Reddy, S/o. Govinda Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Hindu Occ; Cultivation and Business j I tv-9; 9. P. Vijaya Narasimha Reddy, Sj/o. Govinda Reddy, Aged about 48 years] Hindu, Occ; Cultivation and Business 10. P. Kiran Kumar, S/o. Ananda Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Hindu, Occ; Cultivation and Business . .' ' ) All are residing at Thippinaidupalli Village, Devalampeta Post, Vedrukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. ■■i ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI IVID SALEEM The Court made the following: ORDER A ■r;. ■ i \\ ■ I . . - % 1 APHC010083762019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 750/2019 Between: ...PETITIONER G. Gunasekhar Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT(S) P Rajasekhar and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.LJVEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.MD SALEEM The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISIONPETITION NO: 750/2019 JUDGMENT: 1. O.S.No.153 of 2015 before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Puttur was filed for perpetual injunction and the said suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiff filed an application under order IX Rule 9 CPC praying the Court to set aside the dismissed for default order. With certain objections the said petition was returned prescribing time limit for re-presentation. The plaintiff was unable to represent the petition within time and there occured 237 days delay in representation of it. Seeking condonation of that delay, plaintiff filed I.A.No.1241/2017 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court by an order dated 25.02.2019. Assailing the said order, this revision has been preferred under section 115 CPC. 2. 3. 4. The principle submissions of learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that, the learned trial Court misread the petition and dismissed it. The copy of the petition along with the sworn affidavit of the revision petitioner filed before the Court below is verified and it is seen that the suit was dismissed for 3 default on 18.10.2016 and the plaintiff filed petition and the said petition was returned on 16.12.2016 by granting 7 days time to explain the cause of delay in representing it within the time. The affidavit narrates about the sickness of the plaintiff. A reading of the impugned order dated 25.02.2019, passed by the learned trial Court discloses that, the learned Judge considered the matter if the petition was filed with delay and seeking condonation of that the prayer was made. The learned trial court fails to observe the difference between filing the petition beyond the prescribed period of limitation as against representing a filed petition with delay. The representational delay is usually a matter of consideration between the party and the Court and representational delays normally condoned liberally. The sworn affidavit indicated the sickness and there was no specific reasons for trial court to disbelieve such sworn affidavit. The impugned order is erroneous. There is merit in this revision and accordingly the same is allowed. 6. In the result this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Puttur in I.A.No.1241/2017 in as 5. are cum- 4 O.S.No.153 of 2015 is set aside. Consequently I.A.No.1241/2017 is allowed. The trial Court is directed to take up the petition that was filed by the plaintiff under IX Rule 9 CPC within four weeks and dispose of it in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 3-' //TROECOPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Junior Civil Judge curri Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Puttur; Chittoor District. 2. One CC to Sri L J Veera Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri MD Saleem Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 5. Three CD Copies TF 1 HIGH COURT DATED:22/04/2025 ORDER CRP.No.750 of 2019 ALLOWING THE CRP