KALLEM PENTA REDDY DIED Vs. YATAM POCHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are filed by the unsuccessful petitioners/plaintiffs under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short "C.P.C.") assailing the orders dtd. 23/4/2018 passed in I.A.No.498 of 2018 in A.S.No.399 of 2011 and I.A.No.499 of 2013 in A.S.No.400 of 2011 2 by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows: Originally, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed two appeals in A.S.Nos.399 and 400 of 2011 against the common judgment rendered by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No.788 of 1999 and O.S.No.1293 of 2001, wherein both the suits were filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs against the respondentsdefendants seeking perpetual Injunction. Both the suits were clubbed, common evidence was recorded by the Court below and disposed of the same by common judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein preferred the above said appeals before the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Both the appeals heard ex parte and common judgment was pronounced against the revision petitioners herein by allowing the same on 5/3/2013. The revision petitioners filed application for rehearing of the appeals under Order 41 Rule 21 C.P.C. along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") to condone the delay of (208) days and the said applications were dismissed by the appellate Court vide order dtd. 23/4/2013. Challenging the said orders, the present civil revision petitions are filed.

(3.) Sri C.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submits that in the affidavits filed in support of interlocutory applications for condonation of delay of (208) days, the petitioners have shown sufficient cause for not being able to prosecute the appeal; that the petitioners were not negligent in pursing the matter. There was no representation on behalf of the respondents as counsel failed to appear, the matters were heard ex parte and the judgment was pronounced. Petitioner No.1 could not appear due to ill-health and was unable to contact his counsel for one or two days and so also there was delay for obtaining "No objection Vakalat" for (206) days by earlier counsel and total delay of (208) days occurred in filing the application to set aside the judgment. He has submitted that the appellate Court ought to have allowed the application as the petitioners have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the application for rehearing the appeals. The counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan,(2018) 4 Supreme Court Cases 562. K.N.V.Sri Rama Rao v. Govt. of A.P.,1999 (5) ALT 691 (S.B.). and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.Katiji,AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353. and N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy,AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3222.