andhra pradesh high court

Andhra Pradesh High Court: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni wherein an application for condonation of delay was not allowed in the year 2022, in the suit that was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2017. While exercising its civil revision jurisdiction, the single Judge Bench of Ravi Cheemalapati J. condoned a delay of 339 days for the suit filed in 2012 for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from obstructing the use of passage in any manner by taking the bullock cart.

In the matter at hand, the petitioner had filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their men from obstructing or inferring in any manner from using the Rastha by taking the bullock cart, which existed from time immemorial, running from East to West from the part of land of the defendant to reach the part of land of the plaintiff. However, when the trial of the suit commenced, it was dismissed vide order dated 24-07-2017 for non-prosecution.

Thus, an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act was filed to condone the delay of 339 days in filing the petition for restoration of the suit, on the ground that the petitioner was not keeping good health.

The Court noted that no doubt the petitioner had not explained the reasons for the delay in his application, but the Court below should have considered the same by imposing costs. It further stated that ordinarily the litigation should not be terminated by default either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice does require that the adjudication be done on merits.

The Bench observed that though the suit was of the year 2012, the same was pending even till date and if the said application was not considered, the rights of the petitioner would end up being affected. Keeping in view of the same, the Court was inclined to consider the revision.

With the above observation, the Court set aside the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni on a condition of payment of costs at INR 1500/- to the respondents. It also clarified that if the costs were not paid, the impugned order would hold good.

[Pinjari Khasim v Chanda Saheb, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 698, decided on 28-03-2023]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the petitioner- Advocate Y. Koteshwar Rao;

For the respondent- Advocate B. Sarvotham Reddy.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.