THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.813 of 2013
Dated: 18.10.2014
Between:
Kilaru Dileep .. Petitioner and Smt. Savithri Devi and another .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. J. Sumathi Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. J.U.M.V. Prasad Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared The court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 11.12.2012 in I.A.No.984 of 2012 in O.S.No.202 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
I have heard Ms. J. Sumathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and perused the record.
Respondent No.1 filed the above-mentioned suit for cancellation of sale deed No.6284/97 dated 06.10.1997 and delivery of suit schedule property. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in the said suit. After filing his written statement, the petitioner did not contest the suit, as a result of which he was set ex parte. An ex parte decree was passed by the lower Court on 24.07.2009. The petitioner has filed an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree. He has also filed I.A.No.984 of 2012, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 1126 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. By the order under revision, the lower Court has dismissed the said application.
In his affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner has averred that after filing the written statement, he has shifted to Haryana near Delhi due to health problems, that he has undergone regular treatment in Delhi, that prior to his shifting to Haryana, he was staying along with his father and that because of his personal problems, he has left his father’s place and lived separately for sometime before shifting to Delhi. He has further averred that he has suffered from Jaundice and Typhoid and could not move from Delhi, that he has taken nearly six months to recover from the said diseases and that his doctor has advised him to take rest for some more time. The petitioner also averred that his father failed to give sufficient information to his counsel, due to which the ex parte decree was passed.
Except the petitioner’s ipsi dixit, no material in support of his averments relating to his shifting to Haryana is filed. Even with regard to his shifting, the averments are self-contradictory. In one sentence, the petitioner pleaded that he has shifted to Haryana near Delhi and in another sentence, he stated that he has shifted to Delhi. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not filed any iota of evidence in support of his plea that he has suffered from Jaundice and Typhoid and that he was advised rest by his doctor.
Though the courts ordinarily make a liberal approach in considering the applications for condonation of delay, in cases involving abnormal delays, the person seeking condonation of delay must put forth reasonable explanation for condonation of such long delays. After all, the adversary party shall not be subjected to long drawn litigation on account of the indifference and lethargy on the part of the other party. The petitioner has not taken care to produce any shred of evidence before the lower Court in support of his plea of shifting from Hyderabad and also his alleged illness.
The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to draw the attention of this Court to some additional material papers, which are filed for the first time before this Court.
I have carefully perused the additional documents filed by the petitioner. Of the two additional documents he has filed, one is a copy of rent agreement dated 08.03.2007 and another is a sickness certificate.
As regards the copy of rental agreement, it is shown to have been executed by landlady of a house in favour of Madhava Hytech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. through petitioner described as Managing Director. The agreement under which the house situated at Faridabad was leased to the company was for 11 months only. No further document is filed to show that the petitioner continued to live in Faridabad after the expiry of lease period. As the ex parte decree was passed on 24.07.2009, the petitioner’s living near Delhi in 2007 has no relevance. As regards the petitioner’s alleged ill health, a photocopy of sickness certificate dated 17.07.2009 issued by Ayurvedic Ratna Pandit Mulchand Sharma is filed, wherein it is certified that the petitioner was suffering from yellow jaundice from 18.05.2009 and that he has been under treatment and it would take 60 days to cure. In my opinion, this certificate will not in any manner help the petitioner, as even assuming that he has suffered from sickness; as per the certificate, he was not well for 60 days only in the year 2009. The petitioner has not offered convincing explanation for the subsequent delay of more than 1000 days in filing the application for condonation of delay.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the lower Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.1106 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th October, 2014 IBL