High Court · 2025

IA NO: 2oF m25 Pettio n under Section 151 CPC Prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fibd in suPPort of the Petrtlo n. the High Court may be Plea sed to stay the execution Proceedings inEPNo 32 of 2019 in O S No. 248 of 2O 18, on the file of the PrinciPal District and Sessions Judge cum Fami{Y Court' Medchal- Malkajg iri District at Kushaigud a. pendrng dlsPosal of the CMA SRI DURGA PRASAD SADAM Counsel for the APPellant: SRI SUBBA REDDY PAMI REOOI Counsel for the ResPondents The Court made the following: THI} HONOURAELE SRI JUS?ICE T.VINOI]I KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREII SUDHA qIVIL MISCELLANElOUS APPEAI No.39 of 2O2s lruqSl4qryI: lper Hon'ble Snt. Justice p_Sree gdha) 'fhis Civil Miscellaleous Appeal is filed agai:rsl r he Orrlcr clatcd O5. ,O.2024 in I.A.No. 146 of 2O2O in O.S.N<, 248 ,:tf 2C18 passt.cl by the learned principal District and Ser,srons Jud;3t: c rr r n [.'am i I y Cou rt-Medcha]_Malkajgiri District, ar t,.us h a i gu d. 'lhc :r1>pellant herein has fileC an applicatlon .,rg;ur.rst rh(, I Ii'jt,(,irclcIt ltclorc the trial Court uide I.A.No. t4(, OI- .lO2() irl ( r S Nrr 24t, ol- 2018, for setting aside the ex-parte,:jcr: rr.r <l:rtrrri {rl lo.tOlci 1;assed in O.S.No.24g of 2Olg witl.r a ,iel:rv ol l.].t Ll.r,. s. .rs sLL<:h filed another application urde LA.No. I-]5 ot. l()-,o rrr ( ) S.No 248 of 2Olg, for condoning the dclay ol l.l.l ri;r.,: rr lrlrr^ rhc ;rpltlrcation for setting aside the ex_parte dr rcrct. lrirssrrl ,rq, nsr hcr 'llre trial Court after considering thc a-gUnt(,r.lts ()l lrlrlr srrl<.:; rli:;misscd both the applications on the rl.loLnr{l il), I rro strllir:it.rr ( ause was shown to condone the delzry rr_r Iilrrrg rlrc rlrlrlrr'.r l i<rru r> sct aside the ex-parteOrder. Aggri<:vcd tl tlr,.s;rirl ( )r(l( r' .rllr)r'[irr)t hets preferred the present Ci'ir Mrrct,rirrrr:.r. r\p1;r';rl 2

3. learned Counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the trial Court has erred in concluding that appellant was negligent in contesting the case. In fact, appellant has no knowledge of thre ex-parte decree due to unavoidable and pressing circumstances. He also contended that the trial Court ought to have taken liberal approach in condoning the detay. Appellant is seeking an opportunity to contest the suit on merits as she is entitled ficr fair trial. Respondent has obtained t}.e ex- parte d,ecree fraudulently and promissory note was obtained by coercion and fraud. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

4. The learned Counscl [or the appellant/ plaintitf state d that respondent hercin has filcd thc suiL uide O.S.No.248 of 20 18, against the appellant for recovery ot Rs.61,54,082/- and the suit was posted to 25.04.2019, for filing written statement. On that day, appellant/ dcfcndant neither appeared bc[ore thc Crurt nor engaged any advocate to give instructions, as such she was set ex-parte an<l later ex-parte decree was passed on O1.1O.2O19. He further statccl thzrt appellant rvas in Bangalore from June 2Ol8 to Mar' 20[(). srnce her son rvas sltrdvrng in Bangalore and felt sick, he rr,,as admitted in hospitat, as such she did not receivc an],noticc from the Court. Her mothcr $'as 3 ilr( r( iidr[ ()l tlii: l cliponc{c r rt / plaitrtiff sirlce iU]1, rud sllr "r'.tli r(:sr(iirrg in tlre said address from the past I 5 yc iu':;. Appellar-rt lras also stayed along with her mother, as he: mother was opt:rated [or breast cancer and often fell sick. She was shuLtling bcltrrc Hvderabad and Bangalore and attendinq lhc cheque l)ounce <:ases filed against her at Kukatpally Courts in C C.Nos 6Ol ot 2Ol8 a;rd 347 of 2019. Ort O4.O2.2O21, irplrr'llant rcceived a notice from the Court in E.P-',1o.32 of 2O19, llrr n onlv she came to know about r.he pendency ol tht: prese nt r:rst As rro notice was served Lrpon her, and sin,:c hcr mother ,rrrrl son wcre sick and hospitalized, she has t( tirk( turt of rlr(.nl .urr[ as she was already attending two cl'rcclut' bounct: r';rsr'.;, shc <:ould not attend the Court and contest th<: trt tttct , [-c:rrnt-'cl Counsel for the respondent/plaittltft st.rtr rl tltrrt 1lr, I rlr.r'n,ing the notic€ in the suit, appellant lt:ts .Lplrtttrtcl rlrr,, rqlr lcr-Counsel on 2O.08.2018 and hled an ,l'ft'rurt', rlr( rIr() rr, :rl, \'irkrrlzrt and thereafter, she did not tltrr u[) lrr lr.rrrgi \\ r lr( n sullcrne nt even after eight months o[ trnr:. Il rs rriso \r.ri( (l llrrrl respondent has also filed an :rpilltt tttr,rtt t,trlt' I :\ \rr ()l(r ol-2O18, for attachment before Ju<lgn t'nt rlrlrrr<lirrrl ,rtr !r ultur:rl lancls, which belongs to the appcll:utl. ) \\ ttCh tlrC rrr.ri Corrrt ordered notice to the appellant hcrt'ir, ()n tlrc lrrst 4 date of hearing, she appeared before the Court along with hcr Counscl and thereafter started selling the properties, in tvhich respondent sought for attachment and sold the prope rties taking undr:e advantag€ of tlre time granted by the trial Court for filing Counter and Written Statement. Shc was alsrr appearing in the cheque bounce cases with the same Counscl with a fear that NBW may be issued against her. Shc kcpt quict tilt the passing of the decree, tiling of E.P and attachmcnt o[ tlit: residential flat belongs to her and came up with this applicairorr only to cause loss to the respondent' From thc d' t( ( 'l appearance of the appellant before the trial Court i t:' ' ott 2O-O8.2O18 titl the property attached in E P No 32 o[ 2()l(r' nearly 20 months of time was availed by the appellant' bttl slrt has not taken any steps to file counter or u'ritten stittcrll( rrl Moreover, she has sold the properties *'hich u'erc sottqht lrrr rrt .ittachment before Judgment, and when her rcsidcnltitI ll'tt '" "s ilttachcd, shc rushed to the Court. Respondellt also st:rtt rl tlr'rt appellant was also trying to sell the property at tac'lri ri r rt E.P.No.32 of 2Ol9 and she has suffrcient amount to dcposrt tir' E. P amount and thus requested the Court dismiss botll I lr' applications. 5 t) lnl:iill1,, ( I S N() 24g ol 2(l15 rr.ar; lrlcd G,i icLovctv oi I?s.fi t,5a,t)82/ tL is stated that appcllant and rr:sponclent are well known Lo each other and appellant was the tenant o[ the responden t from more than 15 years. On such ,,rcquarntance, re spondent gave an amount of Rs.4O,OO,OOO/- on l)2.Og.2015 to thc appcllit.t as hand loan and appellant has al:;o cxecuted a promrssoryr note on the same day and promised to re pay the same alonl; lr,ith interest at the rate of Rs.l % per rnonth. tater, u,hcn respondcnt requested the appellant to repay the amount, shc issued a chcque bearing No.79 i293, darcd lg.rj6.2O l g, but l-hc same was returned with an endorsemer)t ,,Drawers Signarure Di{[ers". It was informed to the appe,lant .cy r:spondcnl :rnrl also issued a legal notice on 09.07 201g, but it \r':rs rctLlrn( (l :rs 'unclaimed,, as such sl-re filed th<: suit frtr rccovcrv oI al{n()Ll 11t. Llre r i\pPr:llant hcrein contended that she has no I:rrou,leclqc of Pcndcncv ol thc suit. She was shuttling bctween Hyrlcrabrrd and []zrngalore as hcr son fett sick at Bangalore and her rnotlrcr also li'll sic k :rr f{\.dcrabad. It seems that her mother anr] [r,-:rst:lf trre rt srrlrrrq llt llt(' saltnc t.touse anri aac ,.enants oI ttre re jl).)lrci(.n(. ll rs sl:lt( d b.r, thc rcspondeltt that appcllant appearec [rr:[or.t. th,: l.r;rl c.urL through hcr counscr on 2o.og.20Lg ar r{ r'irrd .rr 5 offering memo to lile Vakalat. It seems that notice r,r,as already served upon her mother, who was the tenant and later lor thc reasons best known to the appellant, she has not filed thc Vakalat. When tl.e respondent filed I.A.No.92(t o{ 2018, for attachment before Judgment, appellant has Iro( filed th<: counter, but she sold the properties during the perrdcncy o[ thc said application and the suit. The trial Courl- grantcd rnore than sufftcient time of eight months and passed the ex-parte decrcc. [.ater, respondent has filed E.P.No.32 of 2019. Aftt'r scrvicc ,rf' rroticc in the E.P and attachment of her resid< rrti;rl [l:tt. sht' rushcd to the Court and requested to condone tlrc rlcl;rv ol 1.1'l clavs in filing the petition for setting aside the ex PQt'te rl<'c rt c I( is not the case that appellant has no kno"r lt rlqc' ol t lt,' prr[:ccdings. ln spite of having knowledge o[ pcritlrrrll srtrt. \t](' lras not filed the written statement ard moreovt'l srrltl irtt;tr tltt propr:rLics attached before the trial Court. This t lr',rr lr slr,,tr s IIlirt shc intended to drag on t*te proceedings :rllrl Iltt tt.tsotts st.rtcd b-t, thc appellant for not filing the wriltcrl \l.rl( rlr('rr( ,rr( rrcittrcr convincing nor satisfactory. The trial Cotrr I ( ()rlsr(l('t rrlrl .l lrrs ('t'tti t ,rll thc urspccts, rightly dismissed the applicatiotr'. lirrrls no rcasons to interfere *{ttr the said Orcle r 1 l-i Irr tirr. rr.srrlt, Iitt lrir rr-ur dismissed by cor.rIirming tircr I.A.No. t46 of 2O2O in O,S.No.248 of 20t8, 'l here shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous pctrllons ,- rvrl [\4 r:;,_-tlliin.,(r us Appeal is Urder of the r,rial (lourt in datt,d 0S. 1O.2O24. Pcnding, it any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// SD,I. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR l sEcflurii brptceR closed. To,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge cum Family rleurt, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

2. One CCto SRI DURGA PRASAD SADAM Advocate ppuCl 3. One CC to SRl. SUBBA REDDY PAMI REDDT Advocate,tOpUCI

4. Two CD Copres TPK/gh yt_ HIGH COURT DATED:22t0412025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.39 of 2025 .\. I ,1l:i SEP 2E 't .:- 1)F \:.- , -,1 'I i ar\f I : --1--12.-' CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAI- IS DISMISSED .e1(el)r G fir,'