METTU SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. METTU NEELAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 22.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.1009 of 2015 in O.S.No.292 of 2005 by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff No.3 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1514 days in filing a petition to set aside the judgment of dismissal dated 16.03.2011 in O.S.No.292 of 2005.

(2.) The brief averments as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the impugned application are that the petitioner and others have filed a suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed and the same was dismissed for default on 16.03.2011. The petitioner states that he is an uneducated person and that on 16.03.2011, as he met with an accident and went into coma, he failed to appear before the trial Court to adduce evidence on his behalf, due to which, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default and the defendants have gained over the other plaintiffs. He further states that as he was taking treatment in the hospital due to serious injuries, by spending huge amounts, he could not file the application for restoration of the suit in time and hence, the delay of 1514 days occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton. He further states that the respondents had played fraud on the petitioner.

(3.) Respondent No.6 filed counter-affidavit in the impugned application stating that the petitioner has not come to the Court with 2 CKR, J C.R.P.No.1528 of 2019 clean hands as he had suppressed the fact of his filing earlier petitions in I.A.Nos.1150 and 1151 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay of 47 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC and to restore the suit on file and the said petitions were dismissed for default on 05.09.2012 as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner having already filed petitions, again filing of the present petition for the self same relief is not maintainable. He further states that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the suit proceedings and therefore, the suit was dismissed for default on 16.03.2011 and even, the impugned application was also dismissed on 24.10.2016 for non-deposit of process, but subsequently, the same was set aside. He further states that the present petition is filed only to harass the bona fide purchaser of the property and that the petition is not maintainable as the plaintiffs, who were claiming the relief jointly in the suit, were made as respondents. He further states that the petitioner was habituated in filing petitions to drag on the matter for no valid reason. He further states that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his contention that he met with accident on 16.03.2011 and went into coma. He further states that the averments in the present petition are contrary to the pleadings in the earlier petitions. He also states that if the petitioner met with accident and went into coma, the basis for filing of the earlier petitions has not been explained.