The High Court · 2025

4. Smt Aruna Malani, Wo Sri Bansilal Mohanlal Malani Occ Business, R/o 203 Bagumpet, Hyderabad ...Petitioners/ Respondent s 1 to 4 AND

1. Mr Chettir N.R, Sio Late PARN Ramaswamy Chettir, Occ -Business, R/o 13 1 , Nungam bakkam High Road, Chennai-34.

2. M/s Penguin Textiles Limited, Regd Office at 131 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai- 600 03 REp by Executive Director, ..... Respondents/Petitioners/Defendant No 3 & 4

3. Smt R.Kamala Achi, Wo Late PARN Ramaswamy Chettir Occ Business R/o Plot No. 452 Road no. 20, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-s00 0039

4. Mr. R.Naraan Chettir, S/o Late PARN Ramaswamy Chettir Occ Business R/o PIot No. 452 Road no. 20, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-s00 0039

5. Mis lndian Bank, Rep by its Branch Manager (R-3 to R-5 not necessary parties in this CRP) ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants ,./ Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MARUTI RAO SRUNGARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRIE SAMBASIVA PRATAP Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.S : SRI RAVIKUNTALA VENKATA SUBBA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER w" ::ir:: .:/7 /.' 7 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No. 269 OF 2Ol4 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 28. 10.2O13 in I.A.No. 532 of 2013 in O.S.No. 217 of 20OO on the file of learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the trial CourtJ, wherein, the I.A- filed to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22 .O4 .20 1O passed in O.S.No. 217 ol 2OOO, is allowed.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in the above O.S. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential injunction in respect of 98.47%o shares in defendant No.4- Company. It is stated that the plaintiffs have entered into MOU with defendants on 11.10.1998 and again on 3i.O1.1999, the plaintiffs entered into fresh MOU with the defendants in similar lines as that of 1 1. 10. 1998 due to ..' ,'ii:l:l,l{ /'//r/ 2 SKS,J C.R.P.No.269 of 2O14 sudden demise of husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 namely Sri P.AR.N.Ramaswamy Chettinar and made payments to the defendants on lO.lO.1S98 and 20.02.1999 to that effect. According to the plaintiffs, despite paying the total consideration of Rs.25,00,0OO /- for 98.47ok shares, defendant Nos.1 to 3, who are holding the said 98.47oh shares in defendant No.4-Company as trustees, contemplated to sell 98.47o/o shares to third party and searching for another co-promoter lor defendant No.4-Company by violating thc terms ancl conditions of the said MOU. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit and on 22.O4.2O7O , the trial Court passed the ex parte judgment. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed I.A. No.532 of 2013 in O.S.No.217 of 2000 lo set aside the ex parte jrrdgnent dated 22.O4.2O1O.

4. By the impugned order dated 28.1O.2OL3, the trial Court allowed the said I.A. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiffs hled the present revision petition.

5. Heard Sri Maruti Rao Srungarapu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel .for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for :{g rygr,/ ,/ 3 sKs,J C.R.P.No.269 of 2O14 respondent No.4 and Sri Ravinutala Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.S. Perused the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitibners submitted that despite serving of notice on respondents on several occasions, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have consider that the suit was decreed on 22.O4.2O7O and the I.A.No.532 of 20 13 was f,rled on 29 .O4 .2013 without any condonation petition for an inordinate delay of 11O3 days. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Civil Revision Petition setting a side the impugned order.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that when the petitioners published notice through newspaper, the respondents immediately approached the petitioners and then they came to know about the ex parte judgrnent dated 22.O4.2O1O passed by the trial Court. He further submitted that the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order as there is no lapse on part of the respondents in hling the I.A.No.532 of 2013. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. "T'f./ 4 sKs,J C-R-P.No.269 of 20l4

8. In view of the rivnl submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the record. It is apparent that the original suit which pertains to the year 2000 was filed before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and notices were served on the respondents. Thereafter, at the stage of trial, the said suit was transferred to IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the trial Court has passed the ex parle judgment on 22.O4.2O1O. It is noteworthy that the respondents have no knox'ledge about the translcr of the said suit and they came to know about the ex porte judgment when they encountered the paper publication. Further, though the learned counsel for the revision petiLroners raised contention that the respondents hled I.A.No.532 of 2Ol3 without any condonation petition for an inordinate delay of 1 I O3 days, the Apex Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad (D) through .LRs. Ys. Prithui Raj Singhl, observed that condonation petition is not necessary when there is a sufficient ground in a petition fiIed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex parte judgmen t and the said petition can be allowed as the procedure cannot stand in the way of justicc. Hence, this Court, having respectable ' 2o2g rrsc to:o .@./ 5 sKs,J C.R.P.No.269 of 2014 agreernent with the views take n by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment and circumstance of the case, is of the considered opinion that there is no inhrmit5i is discernable with the impugned order passed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court and the Civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 2g.lO.2O13 in I.A.No.532 of 2Ol3 in O.S.No.217 of 2OOO on the file of learned IX Additional Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad 2 One CC to SRl. MARUTI RAO SRUNGARAPU Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRl. AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA Advocate [OPUC] 5. ONE CC tO SRI SF{I RAVIKUNTATA VENKATA SUBBA RAO AdVOCAtE loPUCl

6. Two CD CoPies chs iPSL j--.<...''. __) HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER GRP.No.269 of 2fJ14 'o o a: * 2 5 JUr ?fl?s ;I ,:l { DISMISSING THE GRP WITHOUT GOSTS