Crp/2029/2018 Of Smt.g.k.parvathamma v. Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii And 3 Others

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD [.] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2029 OF 2018 Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Orderdated.07.02.2018 passed in 1A.No.1252 of 2017 in O.S.No.662 o'f 2011 on the file ofthe Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Between: Smt G.K. Parvathamma, W/o. G.K. Vijay Bhaskar Rqddy, Aged about 48 years,Occ. Housewife, PJo.H.No. 19,D.No.2-191, SBI 1'' Colony, Adoni, KurnoolDistrict, Andrhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1lncome Tax Recovery Officer-ll,Company Range-ll, lV Floor, New Block,Room No.404, 1 21,N.H.Road,Chennai-600034.Room No.404, 1 21,N.H.Road,Chennai-600034. Union of lndia, Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi 3lGGl Resort lnternational Limited, No.T-18-A, Alsa IVlal Complex, ['149, ]tvlontiethRoad,Egmore,Chennai-600008 represented by its Managing Director.Road,Egmore,Chennai-600008 represented by its Managing Director. 4M/s Life Style Constructions, a Partnership Firm having its office atH.No.6-2-42,A.C.Guards,Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing PartnerG.Srinivasa Reddy.H.No.6-2-42,A.C.Guards,Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing PartnerG.Srinivasa Reddy. ...RespondentsiDefendants lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orderspassed in 1A.No.1252 of 2O17 in O.S.No.662 ol 2011,daled07-02-201 8 on the file ofthe X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, [pending ]disposal of themain Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s SUNITHA MONDAL FOR SRI A. P. REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI VENKAT RAM REDDY FORSRI K. RAJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI VASANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 4: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDYCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2029 of 2018 ORDER: This revision is filed challenging the order dated 07,02.2018 inI.A.No.1252 of 2Ot7 in O.S.No.662 of 2011 passed by theX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder anapplication filed seeking condonation of delay in flling the petition torestore the suit was dismissed.X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder anapplication filed seeking condonation of delay in flling the petition torestore the suit was dismissed. 2. The petitio ner/p la intiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.662 of2011 for declaration and injunction under Section 281 read with Rule11(6) of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961, against therespondents herein. The suit was dismissed was default on 26.70.2017for non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel. An application inI.A.No.1252 of 201,7 was filed seeking to condone the delay of threedays in filing a restoration petition under Order IX Rule 9 CPC and forsetting aside dismissal order dated 26.L0.2017. 3. Mr. Sunitha Mondal, learned counsel representing Mr. A.P.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there wasdeath in the family of the petitioner/pla intiff . It was stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition that his familymember, Mr. G. Kuber Reddy, died on 25.10.2017 and as instructedby the petition erlpla intiff, the advocate appearing on his behalf filedan adjournment petition on 26.70.2077. However, the learned trialJudge did not consider the same and dismissed the suit for default. 4. As it appears from the record, there is no counter filed by therespondents before the Court below. Even in this revision, there is noappearance on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 4. Mr. Venkat Ram ) t To, 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10MMK TP TPt-- 3. Mr. Sunitha Mondal, learned counsel representing Mr. A.P.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there wasdeath in the family of the petitioner/pla intiff . It was stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition that his familymember, Mr. G. Kuber Reddy, died on 25.10.2017 and as instructedby the petition erlpla intiff, the advocate appearing on his behalf filedan adjournment petition on 26.70.2077. However, the learned trialJudge did not consider the same and dismissed the suit for default. 4. As it appears from the record, there is no counter filed by therespondents before the Court below. Even in this revision, there is noappearance on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 4. Mr. Venkat Ram ) t To, 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10MMK TP TPt-- Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr, K. Raji Reddyf learnedstanding counsel for the respondent No_I, submitted that orders be passed mayon merits. Mr. K. counsel representing Mr, K. Raji Reddyf learnedstanding counsel for the respondent No_I, submitted that orders be passed mayon merits. Mr. K. Vasantha Rao, Iearned counsel for therespondent No.3, stated that the respondent No.3, stated that the petitioner was not diligent indiligent inpursuing the suit before the Court below. However, the learnedHowever, the learnedcounsel does not dispute the fact that the application for adjournmentof the case was filed by the petitioner,/p la int jff on 26.10.2017.of the case was filed by the petitioner,/p la int jff on 26.10.2017. 5 Though conditional order was passed by theCourt belowdirecting the plaintiff to proceed with trial on 26.10.2017,jt is a matterof record that the petitioner/plaintiff, through his advocate, filed aseparate application on 26.10.2077 for adjournment of the case citingreason of death of one of his family member. In such clrcumstances,the Court below should have taken a lenient view in condoning thedelay of three days in filling the restoration petition. This Court is ofthe opinion that non-appearance of the petitioner/pla intiff was notdeliberate, in view of the fact that there was a death in the family. In view of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed subjectto payment of costs of Rs.5,000/_, out of which, Rs.2,500/- to beremitted to the Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District andRs.2,500/- to be remitted to the Advocates Bar Association, RangaReddy District. pending miscellaneous petitions,if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. orr,.roi?'i[efll*X*(>-SECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY' The X Additronal Chief Judge, City Civil Court. at Hyderabad. '121 1.1.919 Iur Recovery Officer-ll, M Company Ringe-ll, tV Floor, New Block, Room No.4O4, , [N.H. ]Road,Chennai-600034 Union of lndia, Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New DelhiOne CC to Sri A. P. Reddy, Advocate One CC to Sri K. Vasantha Rao, Advo-ate [Oi]UClOne CC to Sri K. Raji Reddy, Advocate tOpUClThe Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy Di;trict.One CC to Sri A. P. Reddy, Advocate One CC to Sri K. Vasantha Rao, Advo-ate [Oi]UClOne CC to Sri K. Raji Reddy, Advocate tOpUClThe Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy Di;trict. The Advo.ates Bar Association, Ranga Reddy District. Two CD Copies One Spare Copy HIGH COURT DATED: 0610812021 ORDERCRP.No.2029 of 2018 Esi-laP.)r)2 [1 ][osT ][20el]ot*.I'*-ii ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITICIN . et.toq\ro U