THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1998 AND 2035 OF 2014 DATED 22nd AUGUST, 2014 C.R.P.NO.1998 OF 2014:
Between:
Manda Babu Rao … Petitioner And Vallamdas Yakaiah (died per L.Rs.6 & 7) and others.
… Respondents THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1998 AND 2035 OF 2014 C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner in these civil revision petitions filed a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC in E.A.No.41 of 2008 in E.P.No.51 of 2004 in O.S.No.212 of 1995 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad. The said claim petition was dismissed for default on 12.11.2013. He thereupon filed E.A.No.47 of 2014 to condone the delay of 154 days in seeking restoration of the claim petition; E.A.No.48 of 2014 to restore the claim petition; and E.A.No.49 of 2014 to stay further proceedings in the E.P. till the disposal of his applications. By common order dated 16.06.2014, the executing Court dismissed the EAs with costs. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the condone delay application in E.A.No.47 of 2014, CRP No.1998 of 2014 was preferred by the petitioner while dismissal of the restoration application in E.A.No.48 of 2014 led to the filing of CRP No.2035 of 2014.
The suit, O.S.No.212 of 1995, was filed against the father of the claim petitioner seeking declaration of the plaintiff’s title and for a permanent injunction restraining him and others from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property. A further direction was sought against the father of the claim petitioner to remove the constructions made by him in the suit property at his own expenditure. The said suit was decreed on 24.09.2003 and the appeal preferred by the father of the claim petitioner was dismissed at the threshold on the ground that no reasons were made out for condoning the delay in the presentation thereof. Thereafter, the executing Court seems to have passed a detailed order on 21.07.2008 directing the father of the claim petitioner to remove the constructions made by him in the suit schedule property. Against the said order, the father of the claim petitioner preferred CRP No.3221 of 2008 before this Court and the same was ultimately dismissed on 12.09.2008. The subject claim petition came to be filed on 05.08.2008 but after impleadment of the legal representatives of the plaintiff in September, 2009, it appears that the claim petitioner did not evince any interest in pursuing the matter. It was in these circumstances that the executing Court dismissed the claim petition for default on 12.11.2013.
Perusal of the order under revision in these two cases reflects that the petitioner/claim petitioner failed to explain the delay on his part in seeking restoration of the claim petition. His excuse that he was residing in Hyderabad and that he could not therefore contact his counsel was disbelieved as his address in the affidavit was shown as Kesamudram in Warangal District and not Hyderabad. Further, the executing Court took into account the relationship between the claim petitioner and the judgment debtor, who was none other than his father, and came to the conclusion that the claim petitioner lacked bona fides.
Though Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsel, would contend on merits that the claim petitioner has independent rights on the basis of an assignment patta granted to him by the Government, the irrefutable fact remains that the claim petitioner failed to pursue the petition having filed the same as long back as in the year 2008. The executing Court specifically noted that he did not evince interest in the claim petition after 03.09.2009. This lack of diligence on the part of the claim petitioner cannot therefore be ignored. All the more so, when he was well aware of the decree suffered by his own father and which had an adverse impact on the land claimed by him under the alleged assignment patta. This Court therefore finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, in both the CRPs shall also stand dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
22nd AUGUST, 2014
PGS
------------------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J