IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1348 OF 1997
Between:
V.Madhusudhan Reddy … Petitioner V/s.
The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for Petitioner : Sri M. Papa Reddy Counsel for Respondents : GP for Arbitration for R-1 Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao Respondents 11 to 21 The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1348 OF 1997
O R D E R :
This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against orders dated 05/8/1996 in Proceedings No.B-4/4046/90 of Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, whereunder Ranga Reddy Joint Collector dismissed the appeal filed under section 90 of A.P. [Telangana Area] Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and confirmed the orders of Additional Revenue Divisional Officer [Land Reforms], dated 15/5/1975 in File No. LRW/63/75.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, representing Sri M.Papa Reddy, Advocate for Revision Petitioner submitted that the date on which appeal was posted before Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, Advocate could not attend, as he lost his diary and lost sight of hearing date and Advocate has given an affidavit to that effect but the Joint Collector failed to restore the appeal and dismissed the restoration application. He further submitted that when an application is filed for restoration, the Joint Collector without passing any orders on the said application served memo dated 18/12/1996 informing him that restoration petition is rejected. He submitted that no reasons are given for rejecting restoration of appeal, therefore, the order of Joint Collector is illegal.
4. Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate for respondents 11 to 21 submitted that respondents herein were granted 38 (E) Occupancy Rights Certificate under A.P. [Telangana Area] Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 on 15/5/1975 and challenging the same, petitioner herein filed an appeal with a delay of seven years, nine months and twenty six days and even that appeal was not prosecuted diligently and the affidavit filed by the Advocate is not convincing. He submitted even according to affidavit of advocate, on 22/1/1996 he noted the date of adjournment in his diary, and thereafter, as he lost the diary, he visited the Office in June 1996 but he could not get any information from the office due to inspection and thereafter he received communication of dismissal of the appeal on 05/8/1996 which shows that even advocate has not evinced any interest from June 1996 to August 1996. He further submitted that petitioner has to explain the delay for the absence but not the advocate and it is settled proposition of law that absence of advocate is not a ground for even adjournment, and therefore, there is a gross negligence on the part of Revision Petitioner in not prosecuting the case diligently. He further submitted that even this Revision is filed in the year 1997 and no interest is evinced for its early disposal, and therefore, the contention of Revision Petitioner cannot be accepted.
5. In reply, Advocate for Revision Petitioner submitted that an opportunity may be given to Revision Petitioner to agitate his rights and that petitioner is prepared to pay costs for the negligence.
6. Now the point that would arise for consideration is :
“Whether there is any illegality in the order dated 05/8/1996 and the memo of Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, dated 18/12/1996 ?”
7. P O I N T : As seen from the order of Joint Collector, dated 05/8/1996, as per the remand order of this Court dated 28/9/1989 in CRP.No. 3590 of 1985 the appeal was restored to its original number and disposed of. As seen from the record, the said appeal was preferred with a delay of seven years, nine months and twenty six days against orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 15/5/1975.
8. According to Advocate for Revision Petitioner, when the delay condonation petition was rejected on 20/4/1996 on the point of limitation against that orders, CRP.No. 3590 of 1985 was preferred and this Court has set aside the said order of Joint Collector and remitted back the matter for consideration with regard to limitation. Inspite of that remand, the Revision Petitioner herein has not evinced any interest before the Joint Collector and according to his docket sheet, Revision Petitioner and his Advocate were continuously absent on 20/3/1995, 18/7/1995, 11/9/1995, 30/10/1995, 04/12/1995, 27/2/1996, 08/4/1996, 26/6/1996 and finally on 05/8/1996. The Joint Collector has clearly mentioned in his order that Revision Petitioner and his Advocate never shown any interest in pursuing the case and considering their continuous absence, dismissed the case for default.
9. As rightly pointed out by the Advocate for Respondents 11 to 21, there is a clear negligence on the part of Revision Petitioner in not prosecuting the case diligently. When the order is granted in favour of respondents in the year 1975, the Revision Petitioner approaching appellate authority after more than seven years to set aside that order and thereafter not shown any interest in prosecuting the case. When the matter was dismissed for default he has approached this court in the year 1997 and from 1997 no interest is evinced to get the matter listed for early disposal. Even from the affidavit of Advocate, it appears because he lost his diary he could not represent the case but that reason is not convincing. If really the petitioner is interested, he ought to have approached the advocate to enquire about his case. The petitioner has not given any reason for his absence and only his advocate gives affidavit. Here, Advocate is an Agent of the party and for the absence before the court, party is expected to show sufficient cause and the affidavit of Advocate may be a supporting piece of material for the reasons assigned by the party. But here the party is totally negligent in prosecuting the case, and therefore, the Joint Collector has rightly dismissed the appeal and also rightly rejected the restoration petition. I do not find any justifiable ground to consider the request of Advocate for Revision Petitioner to give any further opportunity to the Revision Petitioner.
10. For the above reasons, this Revision Petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits. No costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stands closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
20/11/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1348 OF 1997 Circulation No. 47 Date: 20/11/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43