SHAIK RAHLMA BEGUM Vs. K NARAYANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the respondents in I.A.No.17 of 1992 in unnumbered A.S-of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddapah, questioning the orders dated 2-7-1993 by which the petition filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioner was allowed.

(2.) The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No: 20 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddapah. The said suit filed for the reliefs of declaration of title and mandatory injunction relating to the suit property was dismissed on contest on 21-11-90 by the trial Court. Subsequently the plaintiff filed the appeal in the District Court, Cuddapah on 24-10-91 questioning the decree and Judgment of the trial Court. As the said appeal was beyond the period of limitation involving delay of nine months fourteen days, the plaintiff filed IA.No.17 of 1992 under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of such delay contending that she was suffering from heart ailment and was bed-ridden and taking treatment at Kurnool during the relevant period and as such she could not contact her advocate for taking steps to file the appeal in time; that when she returned to Cuddapah from Kurnool, she made enquiries and came to know that the case bundle which was sent to her by her advocate was misplaced by her daughter- in-law and the same could be traced only a day prior to the filing of the appeal; that soonafter the same the appeal was filed involving the above said delay which is not intentional and that, therefore, the appeal may be numbered by condoning the delay. The defendants in the suit, who are the present revision petitioners contested the said petition contending that the reasons urged by the plaintiff for condoning the delay are false; that she was not suffering from any ailment and not taking any treatment at Kurnool; that she originally did not intend to file any appeal against the Judgment of the lower Court and she subsequently chose to file the appeal only on account of some disputes that arosebetween mem; that there are no sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and that the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On the basis of the evidence adduced before him, the learned District Judge allowed the petition for condoning the delay. The present revision petition is filed questioning such orders of the District Judge.