Sri. G.K. Chandrasekhar Reddy V. Income Tax Recovery Officer-II Company Range-II

CRP/2044/2018

AI Insights

This case involves a civil revision petition filed by Sri. G.K. Chandrasekhar against the order of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which dismissed his application for condonation of delay in filing a restoration petition. The original suit, O.S. No. 669 of 2011, sought a declaration and injunction under the Income Tax Act, 1961, but was dismissed for default due to the non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel. The dismissal occurred on 26.10.2017, the same day a family member of the plaintiff died, which was cited as the reason for the plaintiff's non-appearance. The High Court, considering the circumstances and the application for adjournment filed by the plaintiff's advocate, decided to allow the revision petition and set aside the dismissal order, imposing costs as mentioned.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753478 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Code of Civil Procedure
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: A P REDDY
• Keywords: Civil Revision Petition; Condonation of delay; Death in the Family; Non-appearance; Restoration petition
• Section: 151; 11(6); 281; Order IX Rule 9

Judgement Text

",N THE HIGH COURI FOR AI HYJ#EA8If;TE OF TEL'ANGANA FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND fWerrrrY-Or.ie PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY cIVIL REVISI ON PETITION NO:20 440F 2018 Petition under Articre 227 0f the constitution of rndia aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2018 in r.A.No.1260 0f 2017 in o.s No.669 0f 20110n the fire of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: AND 1 Sri. G.K. Chandrasekhar F\"qCV-,.S/o.G. Thimma Reddy, ag_ed about 43 years, occupation. Business. resioeni o'r'ritrt-o. is,'oili.'N\".'l-191. sBr 1st corony, Adoni, Kurnool District, Andhia pradesh. ,..PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF 2 3 4 lncome Tax Recovery Officer-ll gorypgly Range_ll, lV Ftoor, New Btock, Room No.404, 121. N.H.Ro-ad, Chennai - 600054. Union of lndia, Secretary Department of Revenue, lVinistry of Frnance, New De lh i. IGGI Resorts lnternational rlryteo, No.T-18-A, Alsa tr/al complex, 149, N,4ontieth Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600008 represented by lts L/anagirig Oi'reclor - -' ll/t lfe Style Constructions, a Partnershipfirm having its office at H.No.6-2-42, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad, represented by iis Ma naging\" partner G.srinivasa Reddy ..RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 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.1260 of 2017 in O.S.No.669 of 2011 dated 07.02.2018 on the file of the court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. P. REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: K. VASANTH RAO The Court made the following: ORDER lA NO: 1 OF 2018 ) ) i a .. THE I-ION,BLE SRI JUSTICE B' VIJAYSEN REDDY crv tLR EVISION PETITIONN o,2044 of 2018 ORDER: This rev slon is filed challenging the order dated 07 02 2018 in 1.A.No.1260 of 2OL7 in O'S No 669 of 2011 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad' whereunder an application filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the petitlon to restore the sult was dismissed' 2. The petitioner/ plaintiff instituted a suit in O'S No'669 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 LA.No.1260 of 2Ol7 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 10'2O)'7. 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 ,:n behalf of the respondents No.2 and 4. Mr. Venkat Ram 3, [4r. Sunitha lvlondal, learned counsel representing It4r' A'P Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there was death in lhe family of the petitioner/plaintiff. 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 petitioner/plaintiff, the advocate appearing on hls behalf filed an adjournment petition on 26.L0.2017. However, the learned trial ludge did not consider the same and dismissed the suit for default. 2 Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. K. Raj, Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.1, submjtted that orders may be passed on merits lvlr. K. Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, stated that the petitioner pursujng the suit before the Court below. was not d ilige nt in However, the Iea rn ed counsel does not dispute the fact that the application for adjournment of the case was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on 26.10.2017. 5. Though conditional order was passed by the Court below directing the plaintiff to proceed with trial on 26.10.2017, it is a matter of record that the petition erlp la intiff, 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 petitione r/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. ,TRUE COPY// SD/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Lao SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad' 2. One CC to Sri A. P. Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K. Vasanth Rao' Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies 5. One SPare CoPY gbr HIGH COURT ORDER CRP.No.2044 of 2018 ALLOWING THE CRP 02 sEPt0tl (_r ttE5 IAle o DF3pA1 o o > * DATED: 06/08/2021 o- (v / 6 "