THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4645 OF 2013 Dated:23-07-2014 Between:
Mumtaz Begum and five others
... PETITIONERS
AND
Mohd. Ibrahim and 22 others
.. RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4645 OF 2013 ORDER:
This revision is filed against the order dated 01-10-2013 passed by the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A No. 3942 of 2011 in ASSR No. 22003 of 2011.
The facts, in brief, are as under:
The 2nd respondent filed O.S No. 1154 of 1992 in the Court of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) , Hyderabad for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties against the petitioners, the 1st respondent and respondent Nos.3 to 23. A preliminary decree was passed on 20- 07-2007. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners herein and others filed A.S No. 77 of 2008 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) , City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 initially approached this Court by filing C.C.C.A No. 18 of 2008 on the assumption that the value of the appeal is more than Rs.5,00,000/-. However, the appeal was returned leaving it open to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to present in the proper forum. Accordingly, ASSR No. 22003 of 2011 was filed. Since there was a delay of 1105 days in the process, they filed I.A No. 3942 of 2011 mostly by referring Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The lower appellate Court allowed the I.A through its order dated 01- 10-2013. Hence, this revision.
Heard Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.V. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Two reasons weigh with this Court to dismiss the revision. The first is that A.S No. 77 of 2008 which is filed against the same preliminary decree has since been dismissed and aggrieved by that, the parties have filed S.A 1263 of 2013 before this Court. The second, which is on merits, is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 did pursue the remedies, but before a wrong forum and naturally, they are entitled for the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. At any rate, the condonation of delay or numbering of the appeal would be just a formality. On its being numbered, it needs to be given a disposal to be in conformity with the decree passed in A.S No. 77 of 2008. In such an event, the aggrieved parties have to once again work out their remedies before this Court.
Therefore, the C.R.P is dismissed leaving it open to the parties to pursue the remedies depending upon the outcome of the appeal that may be numbered.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
23rd July, 2014 ks