LAWS(APH)-2023-6-40

PATNAM RAMANAIAH Vs. PATNAM SUBBA RAO

Decided On June 14, 2023
Patnam Ramanaiah Appellant
V/S
Patnam Subba Rao Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

(2.) Heard Mr. T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner brought up the respondent and 2nd defendant and got them educated and employed in Government service. But the respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.115 of 2005 for partition with false allegations. The 4th defendant is his second wife. Himself and 2nd defendant and 4th defendant engaged an advocate and got filed vakalat. The petitioner sustained fracture in the year 2005 and getting treatment by that time. His wife who is the 4th defendant in the suit was also attacked with heart ailment and brain hemorrhage and getting treatment. Since the respondent and 2nd defendant including the daughters of the petitioner did not choose to look after them or get any treatment for them, the 2nd petitioner is attending to serve them during treatment. The wife of the petitioner died and he came to know that preliminary decree was passed against them. Due to his old age and ill-health and also due to death of his wife, he could not file written statement in time. Hence the delay occurred and therefore he preferred I.A.No.485 of 2007 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur (for short "the trial Court") under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 193 days enabling the petitioners/D1 and D3 to proceed with the trial. Consequently, he also filed I.A No.517 of 2007 under Order 8 Rule 1 and Sec. 151 of CPC to receive the written statement enabling the petitioners/Defendants No.1 and 3 to proceed with the trial. On considering the submissions of both sides and after careful examination of evidence and the submissions, the trial Court has dismissed both the I.As. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions came to be filed.