Crp v. Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE AT HYDERABAD [*] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [B.VIJAYSEN ] CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NO: [2148 ] Petition under Arlicle 227 of [constitution ][of ][India, aggrieved by ][the ][order ][dated]o7lo2t1| in lA No.1256 0t 2017 [in ]os [N.667 ][0f ][201 ][1 ][0n the file ][of the ][court ][of ][the ][X]Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, [Hyderabad.] Between: P.Gopinath, S/o.K. Puttapa, aged [about ][64 yqaE, ][Occupation Business, resident of]Raghavendra Commerciai, [987/1 ], [Vinobha Road, Mysore, ][Karnqlaka- ]-...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND 1. Income Tax Recovery Officer-ll, [Company ][Range-ll, lV ][Floor, New Block, ][Room]No.404, 121, N.H.Road, Chennai [- 600034.]No.404, 121, N.H.Road, Chennai [- 600034.] 2. Union of lndia, Secretary Department [of Revenue, ][tvlinistry ][of ][Finance, New]Delhi.Delhi. 3. lGGl Resorts lnternational [Limited, ][No ][T-18-A, Alsa ][Mal ][Complex, ][149, ][Ivlontieth]Road, Egmore, Chennai [- ]600008 [represented by its Managing Dtrector ]^ ^ .^Road, Egmore, Chennai [- ]600008 [represented by its Managing Dtrector ]^ ^ .^4. tVIs.Life"Style Constructions, a [Partnership ][firm ][having ][its ][office at H ][No 6-2-42,]A.C.Guard6, Hyderabad, [represented by its Managing Partner ][G.Srinivasa]Reddv A.C.Guard6, Hyderabad, [represented by its Managing Partner ][G.Srinivasa]Reddv ...RES,.NDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 of [cPC ][praying ][that ][in ][the ][crrcumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit filed therewith, in support [of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High ][court ][may be ][pleased]to suspend the order [passed ]in [1.A.No.1256 ][of ][2017 ][in ][O.S ][No.667 ][of ][201 ][1, ][dated]07.02.2018 on the file of the X [Additional ][Chief Judge, City ][Civil ][Court, Hyderabad] For the Petitioner : SRI A.PURUSHOTHAM [REDDY, ][Advocate] For the Respondent No.1 : SRI K.RAJ [REDDY, ][Advocate] For the Respondent No.3 : SRI K.VASANTHA [RAO, ][Advocate] The Court made the following: ORDER ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDYCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2148 of 2018 This revision is filed challenging the order dated 07.02.2018 inLA.No.1256 of 2017 in O.S.No.667 of 2Ol7 passed by theX Additlona Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, [yrhereunder ]anappl cation filed seeking condonation of delay in fillng the petition toX Additlona Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, [yrhereunder ]anappl cation filed seeking condonation of delay in fillng the petition torestore the suit was dismissed. 2. The petitio ner/pla intiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.667 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 26.10.2017for non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel. An application inI.A.No.1256 of 20L7 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 26.70.2017. 3. Mr. Sunitha tvlondal, learned counsel representlng Mr. A.P.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there wasdeath in the family of rhe petitioner/plaintiff. It was stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition ihat his familymember, Mr. G. Kuber Reddy, died on 25.10.2017 and as instructedby the petitioner/plaintlff, the advocate appearing on his behalf filedan adjournment petition on 26.1O.20t7. 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 \ To 1. 2.3. 4. 5. 6.Kj 3. Mr. Sunitha tvlondal, learned counsel representlng Mr. A.P.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there wasdeath in the family of rhe petitioner/plaintiff. It was stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition ihat his familymember, Mr. G. Kuber Reddy, died on 25.10.2017 and as instructedby the petitioner/plaintlff, the advocate appearing on his behalf filedan adjournment petition on 26.1O.20t7. 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 \ To 1. 2.3. 4. 5. 6.Kj Reddy, learned counsel representing f4r. K. Raji Reddy, learnedstanding counsel for the respondent No.1, submitted that orders maybe passed on merits. Mr. K. Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for therespondent No.3, stated that the petitioner was not diligent inpursuing the suit before the Court below. However, the learnedcounsel does not dispute the fact that the application for adjournmentof the case was filed by the petitioner/pla intiff on 26.10.2017. 5. Though conditional order was passed by the Court belowdirecting the plaintiff to proceed with trial on 26.10.20U, it is a matterof record that the petitioner/plaintiff, through his advocate, filed [a]separate application on 26.10.2017 for adjournment of the case citingreason of death of one of his family member. In such circumstances,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/plaintiff ][was ][not]deliberate, in view of the fact that there was a death [in ]the [family.] In view of the above, the civil revision [petition ][is ]allowed [subject]to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, out of which, [Rs.2,500/- ][to ][be]remitted to the Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District [and]Rs.2,500/- to be remitted to the Advocates Bar [Association, ][Ranga]Reddy District. Pending miscellaneous [petitions, ]if any, shall [stand]closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sdi.K.VENKAIAHASSISTANT REGISTRARh"/SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// The X Additional Chief Judge, [City Civil ][Court' ][Hyderabad.]One CC to Sri A.Purushotham [Reddy, ][Advocate (OPUC)]One CC to Sri K.Ral [Reddy, ][Advocate (OPUC)]One CC to Sri K.Vasantha [Rao, ][Advocate (OPUC)]Two CD CopiesOne Spare Copy \ +-- HIGH COURT DATE D:06/08/2021 ORDERCRP.No.2148 of 2018 ALLOWING THE CRP a-q[2)]O ::..r i.'tof:(..(1 6 SiP 20gtK//I\