P.GOPINATH V. INCOME TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-II

CRP/2148/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around a civil revision petition challenging the order dated 07.02.2018 in I.A.No.1256 of 2017 in O.S.No.667 of 2011, passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner, P. Gopinath, had initially filed a suit for declaration and injunction under Section 281 read with Rule 11(6) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against several respondents including the Income Tax Recovery Officer and the Union of India. The suit was dismissed for default due to the non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel, attributed to a death in the family. An application was subsequently filed to condone the delay in filing a restoration petition, which was dismissed by the trial court. The revision petition challenged this dismissal, leading to the High Court's decision to allow the revision, emphasizing the need to consider the circumstances of the petitioner's non-appearance due to a family bereavement.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691815 (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, Section 151 of CPC
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K REDDY; K RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: A REDDY
• Keywords: Civil Revision Petition; Condonation of delay; Non-appearance; Restoration petition; Death in the Family
• Section: 9; 151; 11(6); 281; 227

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD * PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NO: 2148 OF 2018 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. 2. Union of lndia, Secretary Department of Revenue, tvlinistry of Finance, New Delhi. 3. lGGl Resorts lnternational Limited, No T-18-A, Alsa Mal Complex, 149, Ivlontieth 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 ...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 FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE 2. The petitio ner/pla intiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.667 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 in I.A.No.1256 of 20L7 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 26.70.2017. 3. Mr. Sunitha tvlondal, learned counsel representlng Mr. A.P. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there was death in the family of rhe petitioner/plaintiff. It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition ihat his family member, Mr. G. Kuber Reddy, died on 25.10.2017 and as instructed by the petitioner/plaintlff, the advocate appearing on his behalf filed an adjournment petition on 26.1O.20t7. However, the learned trial Judge 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 THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2148 of 2018 ORDER: This revision is filed challenging the order dated 07.02.2018 in LA.No.1256 of 2017 in O.S.No.667 of 2Ol7 passed by the X Additlona Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, yrhereunder an appl cation filed seeking condonation of delay in fillng the petition to restore the suit was dismissed. ) Reddy, learned counsel representing f4r. K. Raji Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.1, submitted that orders may be passed on merits. Mr. 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 26.10.2017. 5. Though conditional order was passed by the Court below directing the plaintiff to proceed with trial on 26.10.20U, it is a matter of record that the petitioner/plaintiff, through his advocate, filed a separate application on 26.10.2017 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 the 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. //TRUE COPY// Sdi.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR h\"/ SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Kj 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 Copies One Spare Copy +-- HIGH COURT DATE D:06/08/2021 ORDER CRP.No.2148 of 2018 o f: t (.. ( // I K ALLOWING THE CRP q 2) r i.' ::.. 1 6 SiP 20gt a- O "