N. Narendra Nath v. K. Sarat Chandra Reddy
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
I [ 3208 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD A/ONDAY .THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA l.A.No. 1 OF 2024 IN/AND APPEAL SUIT No: 408OF 2024 Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 0'l/08/2019 passed in OS No.155912017 on the file of the Court of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge -Cum- XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at lvlalkajgiri Between:
N. Narencira Nath, S/o. Late. N. Ramakrishna Rao, Aged about 51 , Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 6-6-4551111. Road No.9, Behind C.G.O. Towers, Gandhi Nagar, Secunderabad-500080 .
...Appellant AND
1. K. Sarat Chandra Reddy, S/o. K.V. Ramana Reddy, Aged about 67 years, Occ. Retired Officer R/o. H. No.8-5-'14713, Road No 4, Mallikarjuna Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad-50001
2. K.V . Rajesh Chandra Reddy, S/o. K.V. Sarat Chandra Reddy Aged about 40 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee R/o H. No.B-S-14713, Road No.4, Mallikarjuna Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad-5000 1 1
3. K. Deepthi, Wo. P. Rakesh Aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. H. No.8-5-147i3. Road No.4, Mallikarjuna Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad-5000'1 1
4. Smt. N. Suguna, W/o. Late N. Ramakrishna Rao, Aged about 70, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. F-52. llCT Quarters, Habsiguda, Hyderabad (Respondent No.4 is not necessary party to this Appeal) ... Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to condone the delay (1700) days in preferring the above Appeal before this Honourable Court.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the EP No 249t2022 pending on the file of the 1.' Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Secunderabad filed in execution of the Judgment and Decree dated 0110812019 passed by the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge - CumXVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy Distrrct at Malkajgiri in OS No.1559/2017 pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri M.V. Raj Kumar Gabriel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Sri Modali Eswara prasad The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA I.A.No.1 of 2024 In/And A.S.No.4O8 of 2o24 COMMON ORDER:
This application is frled to condone the delay of 1700 days in preferring the appeal.
2.
Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein have hled a suit ui.de O.S.No. 1559 of 20L7, for recovery of arnount with costs and future interest, against the petitioner and respondent No.4 herein. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record and arguments of both sides, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner preferred the present appeal with a delay of 170O days i.e., more than 4 Yz years.
3.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that no summons was served upon the petitioner at any point of time to his present or permanent address. He came to know about the passing of ex-parte decree in O.S.No.1559 of 2077 only on communication of E.P.No.249 of 2022, on that he obtained certified copies of the ex-parte decree and {iled an appeal with a delay of 1700 days.
4.
In the counter frled by respondent No. 1 , he stated that pelitioner instead of filing the application to set aside the exparte decree, he came up with the present appeal at a belated point of time. Legal notice sent to the petitioner and respondent No.4 was relused by them, as such he hled the suit for recovery of amount. Even after passing of the decree, he informed to the petitioner regarding the passing of ex-porte decree, but petitioner never bothered to comply the Order and now after filing the execution petition, he came up with this application with a delav of 17OO days and thus requested the Court to dismiss the same.
5.
Petitioner and respondent No.4 herein were sel ex-parte in the suit. Respondents No. 1 to 3 stated that though they sent notice to thc petitioner and respondent No.4, it was returned witlr an endorsement 'refused', and thus it can be deemed to be proper service. Therefore, now petitioner cannot contend that he has no knowledge of the proceedings of the suit. The father of the petitioner died in August, 2016 and later respondents No.1 to 3 filed the suit for recovery of amount. Though the father of the pelitioner assured to repay the sale consideration, he did not pay the same. Even after the death of his father, petitioner has not filed the application under Order 9 rule 13 to set aside
tlrre ex-parte decree. Only after filing of the execution petition, he came up with the present application at a beiated point of lime. This Court finds that reasons stated by the petitioner for an abnormal deiay of more than 4 % days in filing the appeal are neither convincing nor satisfactory to condone the delay. 6.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2O24 is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal Suit is rejected.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- M, RAMANA KRISHNA UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, \ 1.
\ TheXVlAdditionalDistrictandSessionsJudge.Cum.XVlAdditional tvletrooolitan Sessions Judqe, Rangareddy District at Malkajgiri' One CC to Sri M.V Rai Kumar Gabriel, Advocate tqPgcl One CC to Sri Modali Eswara Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies h+w 2.
J.
4.
Njb/g
HIGH COURT DATED:0211212024 1 r{E S 14 ( COMMON ORDER 7[25 APB I I.A.No. 1 of 2024 ln/and AS.No.408 ol'2024 DISMISSING THE I.A & REJECTING THE APPEAL blet