LAWS(APH)-2025-4-42

BOGIRALA KONDAIAH Vs. SHEELAM LAXMI SOUJANYA

Decided On April 01, 2025
Bogirala Kondaiah Appellant
V/S
Sheelam Laxmi Soujanya Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff by name Bogirala Kondaiah fled suit O.S. No. 223 of 2016 on the file of Junior Judge (Civil Division) Kanigiri for specific performance to compel the respondent / defendant to execute a sale deed basing on the agreement of sale deed dtd. 23/8/2013 claiming inertia to do so the same by the Court. While the suit is under trial, the plaintiff died on 21/9/2003. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiffs' wife and the children have filed two applications viz., I.A. No.1460 of 2024 to bring them as legal heirs under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and I.A. No.1459 of 2024 to set aside the abatement under Oder 22 Rule 9 (2) CPC, and filed I.A. 1458 of 2024 on 5/7/2024 to condone the delay in filing the application to bring the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and to permit the petitioners in the Revision Petition to continue suit.

(2.) The very learned trial judge has dismissed the I.A. 1458 of 2024 which was filed on 5/7/2024 under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of delay in bringing the deceased plaintiff's legal representative with an observation noting "that the party should demonstrate sufficient cause for not meeting the prescribed deadline in filing the application in time, but since the petitioner failed to any explanation for the delay, and the petitioner might be under the impression that the Court would grant his application automatically, basing on the opposing party's "no objection" endorsement without gauging the merits of the application and it amounts to misconception on the petitioner's part and the judicial discretion requires more just consent form the other party and the Court must independently assess whether the reasons for the delay are reasonable and justifiable and the onus of providing a valid explanation for the delay does not abate just because the other party does not object", The other two applications were consequently dismissed vide common order dtd. 13/11/2024.

(3.) Assailing the common order dated the 13/11/2024, the present three Civil Revision Petitions filed: