HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.3226 of 2014 Date : 18-10-2014 Between:
Mohd. Ali Siddiqui and another .. Petitioners And L. Krishna Reddy and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar for Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao Counsel for respondent : --
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 25-6-2014 in I.A.No.833 of 2012 in O.S.No.891 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
I have heard Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
The petitioners filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and other allied reliefs against the respondents. By Judgment dated 15-3- 2010, the suit was dismissed for default. The petitioners filed an application for restoration of the suit. They have also filed I.A.No.833 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1905 for condonation of delay of 892 days in filing the application for restoring the suit and I.A.No.834 of 2012 to set-aside order dated 15-3-2010 dismissing the suit for default and to restore the same to file. These applications were dismissed by the lower Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed this Civil Revision Petition.
In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.834 of 2014, petitioner No.1 has stated that his son who was studying Engineering in Deccan Engineering College was involved in an unfortunate incident of cross firing in the year 2007, as a result of which he has received bullet injuries that he was bed-ridden completely requiring the presence of the petitioners by his bed side; that however, later with great difficulty they have filed the above mentioned suit and that as he was not in a position to spare time, he relied upon his counsel who was not giving information to him except the date on which the case is being posted. Petitioner No.1 further pleaded that in an appeal arising out of the proceedings relating to mutation of the name of petitioner No.2 in the revenue record, they came to know that the suit was dismissed for default; and that when petitioner No.1 has immediately asked his counsel, he has in turn informed that his junior did not attend the court resulting in dismissal of the suit for default. It is further stated that every time he asked his counsel about the case, he was informed that he filed a petition and the court was pleased to order notice to the respondents; that in the month of May 2012, petitioner No.1 personally verified the case and found that his earlier counsel did not even file a petition for restoration of the suit; and that therefore he has lodged a complaint before the Bar Council against his earlier counsel on 26-7-2012.
The purported reasons given by the petitioners would reveal that the same are vague and bereft of specific details. The petitioners have indeed filed the suit after the alleged unfortunate incident in which their son received bullet injuries. The fact that they were also actively participating in another proceedings relating to mutation of the name of petitioner No.2 before the revenue authorities itself would show that the unfortunate incident involving their son had no effect whatsoever on the day to day life of the petitioners. Having found time to file the suit after the alleged incident, it is not possible to believe the version of the petitioners that due to the injuries received by their son, they could not concentrate properly on the suit. The petitioners have not even given the approximate time, leave alone the date on which they have come to know about the dismissal of the suit and as to whether they have signed any petition for restoration of the suit. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they are illiterate. The petitioners cannot be presumed to be so naïve as to believe that without their signing an affidavit their counsel would have filed an application for restoration of the suit. The affidavit filed by the petitioners completely lacks conviction and same does not inspire confidence in this Court to condone the huge delay of 892 days in filing the application for restoration of the suit. The petitioners have failed to show any sign of diligence in pursuing their suit. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly dismissed the I.A.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.4415 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 18-10-2014 AM