SMT.G.K.PARVATHAMMA V. INCOME TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-II AND 3 OTHERS

CRP/2029/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around a civil revision petition challenging the order dated 07.02.2018, which dismissed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing a restoration petition for a suit that was dismissed for non-appearance. The petitioner, Smt G.K. Parvathamma, had initially filed a suit for declaration and injunction under the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was dismissed due to her non-appearance following a family bereavement. The revision petition contested the dismissal of the condonation of delay application, arguing that the delay was due to the death of a family member and the subsequent filing of an adjournment request, which was not considered by the trial judge.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753480 (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: VENKATA RAM REDDY; 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 GOURT 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 REVISION PETITION NO: 2029 OF 2018 Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated.07.02.2018 passed in 1A.No.1252 of 2017 in O.S.No.662 o'f 2011 on the file of the 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, Kurnool District, Andrhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1 lncome Tax Recovery Officer-ll,Company Range-ll, lV Floor, New Block, Room No.404, 1 21,N.H.Road,Chennai-600034. Union of lndia, Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi lGGl Resort lnternational Limited, No.T-18-A, Alsa IVlal Complex, '149, tvlontieth Road,Egmore,Chennai-600008 represented by its Managing Director. 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. ...RespondentsiDefendants lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in 1A.No.1252 of 2O17 in O.S.No.662 ol 2011,daled07-02-201 8 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI VENKAT RAM REDDY FOR SRI 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 3 4 Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s SUNITHA MONDAL FOR SRI A. P. REDDY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2029 of 2018 ORDER: This revision is filed challenging the order dated 07,02.2018 in I.A.No.1252 of 2Ot7 in O.S.No.662 of 2011 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder an application filed seeking condonation of delay in flling the petition to restore the suit was dismissed. 2. The petitio ner/p la intiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.662 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 26.70.2017 for non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel. An application in I.A.No.1252 of 201,7 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.L0.2017. 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 petitioner/pla intiff . It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition that his family member, Mr. G. Kuber Reddy, died on 25.10.2017 and as instructed by the petition erlpla intiff, the advocate appearing on his behalf filed an adjournment petition on 26.70.2077. 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 ) 2 Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr, K. Raji Reddyf learned standing counsel for the respondent No_I, submitted that orders may be passed on merits. Mr. K. Vasantha Rao, Iearned 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,/p la int jff on 26.10.2017. 5 Though conditional order was passed by the directing the plaintiff to proceed with trial on 26.10.2017, of record that the petitioner/plaintiff, through his advocate, filed a separate application on 26.10.2077 for adjournment of the case citing reason of death of one of his family member. In such clrcumstances, 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/pla intiff 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. orr,.roi?'i[efll*X* ,TRUE COPY' (>- SECTION OFFICER The X Additronal Chief Judge, City Civil Court. at Hyderabad. 1.1.919 Iur Recovery Officer-ll, M Company Ringe-ll, tV Floor, New Block, Room No.4O4, '121 , N.H. Road,Chennai-600034 Union of lndia, Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi One CC to Sri A. P. Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri K. Vasantha Rao, Advo-ate [Oi]UCl One CC to Sri K. Raji Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl The Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy Di;trict. The Advo.ates Bar Association, Ranga Reddy District. Two CD Copies One Spare Copy Court below jt is a matter t To, 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 MMK TP t-- HIGH COURT DATED: 0610812021 ORDER et. toq ro Esi-l aP .) r) t* 2 1 osT 20el o .I' * -ii ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITICIN . U CRP.No.2029 of 2018 "