A SIVA REDDY V. INCOME TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-II

CRP/2028/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around a civil revision petition challenging the order dated 07.02.2018, which dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing a restoration petition. The original suit, O.S.No.666 of 2011, was dismissed for default due to the non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel, attributed to a family member's death. The petitioner argued that the death caused the delay in filing the restoration petition by three days. The court, considering the circumstances and the absence of any counter from the respondents, decided to allow the revision petition, emphasizing the need for a lenient view in such human circumstances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764504 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 281 read with Rule 11(6) of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961, Order IX Rule 9 CPC
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VENKAT RAM REDDY; K VASANTHA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNITHA MONDAL
• Keywords: Civil Revision Petition; Condonation of delay; Death in the Family; Non-appearance; Restoration petition
• Section: 9; 11(6); 281; 227

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD - FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVIS ON PETITION NO: 2028 OF 20'18 Petition under Article 227 oI the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2018 in I.A.No.1254 of 2017 in O.S.No.666 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: A. Siva Reddy, S/o. R/o H No 21-22-24, N A.T. Veera Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, S.Nagar, Adoni, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. ,..PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND 1 lncome Tax Recovery Officer-ll, Company Range-ll, lV Floor, New Block, Room No.404, 121, N.H. Road, Chennai-600034. Union of lndia Secretary Department of Revenue, Ir/inistry of Finance, New Delhi. 3. lGGl Resorts lnternational Limited, No.T-18-A, Alsa Mal Complex, 149 lVlontieth Road, Egmor, Chennai-600008 represented by its Managing Director 4, M/s. Life Style Constructions, A partnership firm, having its office at H.No.6-2-42, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad represented by its Managing Partner, G.Srinivasa Reddy ...RESPONDENT'S/DEFENDANT'S lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in 1.A.No.1254 of 2017 in O.S.No.666 of 2O11 daled 071021201 8 on the file of the court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the Petitioner: SMT. SUNITHA MONDAL, Advocate for SRI A. P. REDDY For the Respondent No.1: SRI VENKAT RAM REDDY, Advocate for SRI K. RAJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. VASANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER 2 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No'2O2a of 2O18 98D.EB: This revision is filed challenging the order dated 07.02.2018 in I.A.No.1254 of 2Ol7 in O.S.No.666 of 2011 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, rtrhereunder an applicatron filed seeking condonation of delay ln filing the petition to i-esiore the suit was dismissed. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.666 of 2011 for declaration and injunction under Section 281 read with Rule 11(6) of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961, against the respondents herein. The suit was dismissed was default on 26.10.2017 for non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel. An application ln I.A.No.1254 of 2O1,7 was filed seeking to condone the delay of three days in filing a restoration petition under Order iX Rule 9 CPC and for setting aside dismissal order dated 26.tO.20t7. 3. Mr. Sunitha Mondal, learned counsel representing Mr. A.P' Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there was death in the family of the petitio ner/pla intiff . It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition that his famlly member, Mr, G, Kuber Reddy, died on 25.10.2017 and as instructed by the pelitioner/plaintiff, the advocate appearing on his behalf filed an adjournment petition on 26.10.2017. However, the learned trial ludqe did not consider the same and dismissed the suit for default. 4. As it appears from the record, there is no counter filed by the respondents before the Court below. Even in this revision, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 4. Mr. Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel representing lv1r. K. Raji Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.1, submitted that orders may be passed on merits. N4r. K. Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, stated that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the suit before the Court below. However, the learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the application for adjournment of the case was filed by the petitioner/pla intiff on 26.t0.2017. 5. Though conditional order was passed by the Court below directing the plaintiff to proceed with trial on 26.L0.2011, it is a matter of record that the petitioner/plaintiff, through his advocate, filed a separate application on 26.70.20L7 for adjournment of the case citing reason of death of one of his family member. In such circumstances, the Court below should have taken a lenient view in condoning the delay of three days in filling the restoration petition. This Court is of lhe opinion that non-appearance of the pet tioner/plaintiff was not deliberate, in view of the fact that there was a death in the familv. 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. To, ,TRUE COPY' The X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad One CC to Sri A. P. Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri K. Vasantha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri K. Raji Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] The Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District. 1. 2. a J, 4. E SD/- K, SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t-a SECTION OFFICER [b* l-- 6. The Advocates Bar Association, Ranga Reddy District. 7. The lncome Tax Recovery Officer-ll, Company Range-ll, IV Floor, New Block, Room No.404, 121 , N.H. Road, Chennai-OOOCiSa. B The secretary, Department of Revenue, Union of rndia, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 9. Two CD Copies '10. One Spare Copy gbr I * HIGH COURT DATED: 0610812021 ORDER CRP.No.2028 of 2018 ALLOWING THE CRP i )) ) ) 1t sEP$tl w :) o c.r * , SlAIE )nl t -l ( 1 s