Gunti Anasuya v. Konaboina Muthyalu
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-13. Gunti Anasuya v. Konaboina Muthyalu. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEI\iIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA l. A. No. 1 ot 2024 IN/AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 70 ot 2024 Petition filed under Article Section 1 15 of C. p. C aggrieved by dated 23-11-2022 in 1. A. No. 1135 of 2021 in MVop. No. 741 ot 2015 the Court of the I Additional Chiel Judge. City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Between: 1 Gunti. Anasuya, Chinna Sathaiah, Age: 50 years, _Wo. Occ_ '1l'122, R/o. H. No. 5-1 Boiguda, Secunderabad. 2 Sathaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 54 years, Occ: Labour, 9,9ltilng 1 1 I 122, Boiguda, Secunderabad. ... Petitioners/Petitioners AND 1 Ra. pulu, Age, 39 years, Occ: Rider of fot:Og,lqYgty_a]q, ! /o Br No T_S-07-EB-829, R/o. H. No. 2-103tA, OdOitpur Viilage, Medchat IrIandat, Ranga Reddy District-50'140'l 2 Sri Venkatesh Gorakshini Trust, Rep. by Mitun roy, Occ: Owner Cycle Br No. TS-07-EB-829, R/o. H. No.
2-1 03/A, Debitpur Viilage, Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-SO1401 , J lClCl Lombard General lnsuran-ce Co. Ltd, Rep. by its Regional Olo. 6-3-35211 , Osman Plaza, 3'o Floor, panjalutla, Hyddrabad. ... Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ffre may be pleased to condone the delay of 205 days in presenting the aggrieved by the order dated 23-'1 1-2022 passed in LA. No 1 13S of 2021 in MVoP. No. 741 of 2015 on the file of the court of the I Additional chief Judge, city Civil Courts at Secunderabad. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 2: Sri E. Srinath Reddy Counsel forthe Respondent No. 3: Sri K. Ajay Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER . :. ,:. '. ', ;,. rxt{al-::;Gry ''. ' ,:. :-: . . ,: :... ]'' '{ t..... r THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA I. A. No. 1 OF 2o24 IN/AND CwIL REVISION PETITION No.
7O of 2o24 ORAL ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the orcler dated 23. 11. 2022 passed in I. A. No. 1135 of 2O21 in M. V. O. P. No. 741 of 2015 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein filed IA. No. 1135 of 2027 in MVOP. No. 74\ of 2015 under Section 5 o[ the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delal' of 1243 days in hling the petition under Section Order IX Rulc 9 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC'). In the said IA , it was averred by petitioners that their son died in a road accident and they filed petition for compensation and that when the said petition was posted for trial on 11 O8 2O17 they l were unable to produce the employment and salary details of their son an<l were not able to adduce evidence, due to which the said petition was dismissed for default. The trial Court "T€4.. SKS. I IA. No. 1 oI202. + In/and C. R. P. No 70 ol 2024 . . i. l.
dismissed IA. No. 1l35 of 2027 in MVOP. No. 74t of 20tS uide order dated 23. 71. 2022. Hence, this revision petitlon. 3. Heard Sri Krishna Kishore Kol. vuri, learnecl counsel for petitioners, Sri E. Srinath Rcddy, learned counsel for respondenl Nos. 1 to 2, and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent NO. 3 - Company. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners itre parents of the deceased who are claiming compensatron through beneficial legislation, but they were not able to furnrsh salarv details of their son and approach the company on time, due to which their petition lr,as distnissed for default. Ile asserted that the petitioners admit thal, delay was caused in filing petition before the Court belorv an<l hling revision belbre this Court as well, for which they are willing to forgo the inlerest of the said delay period. Therefore, i,r.
hile advocating tl'rat the petitioners be given fair opportunity to utilize the compensation for their maintenance, praye. d this Court to set aside the impugned order, and allorv this Civil Revision Petition. SI(S. I IA No- I of 2024 m/and C. R. P. No 70 oI202'1 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that though the petitioners arc seeking relief of benehcial legislation, they are not entitled for the same as they were not diligent throughout the proceedings before the Court below and that the revision petition before this Court is also hit by delay of 205 days, hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the petitioners herein are parents of the deceased who failed {- \. to take steps within the stipulated time i. e.
, delay of 7243 days, due to which their petition was dismissed for defauit' Further, the petitioners also frled IA. No. 1 of 2024 in this revision petition to condone delay of 205 days' Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are willing to forgo the interest for the period of delay caused in total, i. e. , 1243 days plus 205 days, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to avail the compensation of the beneficial legislation' SKS. J IA. No I of 2024 in/md C. R P N,,. 70 of 2024 7 . Accordingly, IA. No. 1 of 2024 inland CRp. No. 7O of 2024 are disposed of, subject to petitioners forgoine interest of the beneficial Jegislation, for the period of dela1, car. rsed in preferrrng petition before the Court below and for the period of delay caused in preferring this revision petition. Consequently, the order dated 23. 1 1. 2022 passed in I. A. No_ I 135 of )O2l tn M. V. O. P. No. 741 of 2015 is set aside. There shall be no order as to the costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closcd. Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// :\ TGISTRAR SECT ION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad 2. One CC to Srr Krishna Kishore Kovvuri Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri E Srinath Reddy Advocate [OpUC] 4. One CC to Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies kam/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:1311212024 ! F Z SiAr\ ORDER ( q l. A. No. 1 ot 2024 t o ;. zl,i I t). 0 5 F IN/AND . i' CRP. No. 70 of 2024 t flr.. ;,,nr. \fl l. A. No. 1 of 2024 IN/AND CRP. No. 7O ot 2024 ARE DISPOSED OF. a*&E ft"
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.