S.YAMINI VALLY Vs. SASHI KUMAR KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dtd. 19/12/2019 passed in I.A.No.816 of 2016 in O.S.No.848 of 2012 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

(2.) The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.2 and 18 in the suit. They filed an application viz., I.A.No.816 of 2016 in the suit under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 88 days in filing the petition to set aside the order. In fact, O.S.No.848 of 2012 was filed for declaration of title and for injunction. The petitioners herein could not cross-examine P.W.1 and as such they were set ex parte on 20/1/2016. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments on 1/2/2016 and judgment was passed on 22/2/2016. The petitioners would further state that the first petitioner is staying at Vijayanagaram and the second petitioner is staying at Hyderabad. Due to the ill health they could not contact their counsel and the counsel not even applied for certified copies and on their instructions the counsel applied for certified copy on 21/4/2016 and the same was received on 13/5/2016 and collected the same on 8/6/2016 and contacted the counsel on 12/6/2016 and then filed a petition to condone the delay of 88 days but the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same they preferred the present Civil Revision Petition with the delay of 223 days. 2. Even in the application the second petitioner would state that he is aged 62 years suffering from old age ailments and doctors advised not to travel and as such there was a delay of 223 days.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents would state that the inordinate delay of seven months and thirteen days is not explained properly and in fact the present revision is preferred against the dismissal of delay condonation petition of 88 days. As there is no due diligence on the part of the petitioners, the petition is liable to be dismissed.