The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri. Mehboob Ali, learned counsel for the revislon petitioner/ plaintiff and Sri. V.Atchuta Ram, Iearned counsel for the re spondent/ defendant

2. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the same issue, they are analogously heard together and bcing disposed of by this common order. 3 Civil Revision Petition No.522 of 2o252 This Civil Rcvision Pctition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to set asidc the order dated 3l .12.2024 passed in I.A. No. 627 of 2024 in O.S. No. 47 12 of 2022 by the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, Cit-t' Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial Court'). 81' thc impugned order, the petition frled by the responden t/ defenda nt under Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963, to condone the dela-r of 672 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex pafte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023, was allowed by the trial Co urt.

4. Civil Revision Petition No.552 of 2025: This Civil Revision Petition is filed b5z the petitioner/ plaintiff to set asidc 2 RY,J (:.R.P. N@ s22 dnt ss2 ol 2o2s the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in I.A. No. >28 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 by the learned IX Junior ( :ivil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, the trial CourtJ. By the impugned order, the petition frted by the respor dent/defendant under Order XXXVIII Rule 4 of the Civil Procecl, re Code, 1908, to set aside th,e ex parte judgment and decree da ced O9.01.2023, was allowed by the trial Court.

5. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff anc the respondent is the defendant before the trial Court. Fi r the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will b( referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

6. The brief facts of the case are that inrti [ly, the plaintiff filed a summary suit for recovery of an amount rf Rs.7,59,666/- from the defendant with interest at l2o/o per arl lum on basis of demand promissory note dated O7.O9.2O21; cheque bearing No.000096 dated 15.06.2022, drawn on HDFC I'ank, Mallepally, Vijaynagar Colony Branch; cheque returr memo dated

20.06.2022; legal notice dated O2.O7.2022, posl rl receipts dated O2.O7 .2022; track report taken from the Indiz n Post Web site evidencing the service of legal notice an<l original postal acknowiedgment card in proof of service of J< gal notice dated n 3 RY'J C,R.P Nos.522 utd 552 of X2s Q2.Q7.2O22. Lastly, the plaintiff produced his bank account to prove the payment of loan amount to the defendant. Summons were received on 16.11.2022 and appearance

7. is made through counsel by name K. Venkataiah who hled vakalath on 27 . I I .2022 behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, judgment summons were served on the defendalt on

20.12.2022. After service of judgment summons, the defendant ought to have filed petition seeking leave to defend within the stipulated time but there was failure to do so. Hence, the suit was decreed. Subsequently, the plaintiff frled E'P' No' 255 of 2023 for recovery of suit a-mount of Rs.8,94,840/-' When summons received in the E.P. No. 255 of 2023 on L7 'lO'2024, the defendant learned about the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 and, therefore, liled the I.As. under both the revision petitions i.e., to condone the delay of 672 days and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023.

8. The trial Court allowed I.A. No. 627 of 2024 in O'S' No' 47 12 of 2022 on 31 .12.2024 by passing the following order: "7. POINT:- The suit is filed for recouery of moneg. It is the contention of the petitioner is in need for financial assistance, he took a haruJ loan of Rs.S,OO'OOO/ - through cheque beaing No-0OOO15 dranan on Indian Ouerseas Bank dated 08.09.2021 from respondent/ plainttff artd not of Rs.7'OO'OOO/ - cs claimed in tLrc suit. Since the defendant is contending 4 RY,J C.R.P. Nas.s22 dtul ss2 oJ 2025 ttnt Lrc has good case to deknd and he is ot liable to pag the stit amoun| thi"s Court is of the o1t nion that to auoid multiplicitg of litigation, the point is t nsutered in tLe affirmatiue ond the delag of 672 dags i:, :ondoned.o (ver'r rtim reproduced) 9 The trial Court allowed I.A. No. 628 of. lO24 in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 on 31.12.2024 by passing the follc *,ing order: '6. POINT:- The suit is filed for recouery of the some was decreed ex-parte. It is the : tte petitioner i.s in need for jinancial assisr,I a hand loan of Rs.S,OO,OOO/- through che No.OOOO1S dra utn on Indian Ouerseas I O8.O9.2021 from respondent/ plaintiff rt Rs.7,OO,OOO/ - as claimed in tte suit. defendant is contendirLg tLnt Lte hns gt defend and he is not liable to pay the sult r Court is of tLrc opinion that to auoid n'.t litigation, if is Tust ond essential to dist matter on meits, as the ights of both the. inuolued. Hence in the light of the principl= justice, this appLication b olloued..." moneg and tntention of rce, he took rue bearing 'ank dated td not of Since the )d co,se to moun| this Itiplicitg of se off the parties are ; of nahral (verir rtim reproduced)

10. Aggrieved by the above orders, the pres;r nt Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by the plaintiff. I 1. In the grounds of the revision petitions t is pleaded that suffrcient cause is not shown for condoning I re delay of 672 days and reasons are not mentioned for nc: preferring the petition to set aside the ex parte )udgrten t r rd decree dated O9.O1.2O23 within the time prescribed un<lr limitation Act,

1963. It is pleaded that the petitioner had kno vledge about the \ ,c 5 FY,J cP-P. Nos s22 dna ss2 of2t2s judgrnent and decree dated 09.Q1'2Q23 by 12'07 '2023 when he resisted the execution warrant filed by the Court bailiff' undertaking dated 12.07.2023 and cheque dated 27'O7'2023 respondent/ defendant. pleaded that issuedforthedecretalamountofRs'8,38,5O0/-andfurther' crucial admissions are made adrnitting the liability in the promissory note dated O7.OT.2O21 and the issualce of the cheque bearing No.000096 dated i5 O6'2022 in favour of the petitioner. It is emphasized that the impugned orders are bereft of reasons except lor relving on the defence raised by the Ir hled the I.As., onIY to avoid respondent/defendant has attachment of the schedule property in E'P' No' 1004 of 2024 with the intention of transferring the said flat to third parties' I.A. No. 62a of 2024 is barred under Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of practice. on account of undisputed facts pleaded and voluntary admission ol the liabilit)', there are no grounds to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09 0l'2O23 in the summary suit' The impugned order in I.A. No. 628 of 2024 directing the plaintiff to deposit 50% of the admitted amount of Rs'5,00'0OO/-' with interest and costs is patently illegal lt is pleaded that the triai court farted to understand the object and purpose of summar5r 6 RY,J C R.P. Nos 522 dnll 552 of 2O2S f'-r' procedure. Therefore, the impugned orders dt ted 3l '12'2024 are liable to be set aside

12. Learned counsel for the revision petiti'r rer argued that the orders passed by the trial Court does not 5 rve zrny reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 672 da 7s in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte judgment z-t d decree dated O9.O1.2O23. It is emphasized that lack of reasct ing is a specific ground for setting aside the impugned order. In hat context, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner pla<rrr judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 8i reliance on the ,.shuma Deui a. Sheopatl Deat (itead) and otherst, Shree ll 'ahauir Carbon Limited a. Om Pra,kash Jalan (Financerl ant I Another2 with respect to the admissions made by the resp'r taking hand loan of Rs.5,0O,000/ - during co ' also placed reliance on the judgment of the lj Andhra Pradesh in KogantiPoorndchot Yarranguntla Marry Matdlda3 rr"ith respe<:l rdent / defendant d pandemic. He gh Court of the .dra Rao v, to issuance of signed blank promissory note and blank cheqtt : i,r.hile disputing the loan amount borrowed. < -'(2o r9) s scc 744 \1ors; rz scc 6s3 'zdzs (r) ALr 173 :I I d C 7 CRP Nos-s22 utd ss2 of2o25

13. In response, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the promissory note and cheque are fabricated while filing the summary suit and that the defendant did not get an opportunity to defend the suit due to lapse on the part of his counsel who was more knowledgeable in criminal Iaw while having limited knowledge on the civil law. It is argued that lapse on the part of the learned counsel should not be allowed to cause serious prejudice to the party. It is argued that in view of the lapse committed by the counsel, an opportunity should be given to the respondent/defendant to contest the summar5r suit and therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order passed in the I.As. under the revision petitions.

14. A perusa-l of the record shows that the revision petitioner filed summary suit lor recovery of an amount of Rs.7,59,666/- and future interest. In said summary suit, the defendant has received summons on 16.ll.2o22 and thereafter, he engaged a counsel by name K.Venkataiah to represent the suit. Qn

20.12.2022, the defendant received judgment summons. However, the defendant and his counsel failed to appear within ten (1O) 'tlays of receiving the summons in the suit on L6.1L.2O22 and the judgment summons on 20.12.2022 and therefore, the judgment and decree was passed on O9.O1.2023. 8 Rf ,J C R P. Not: s22 atui552 oI2025 (' The defendant did not appear and seek leave t.< defend the suit resulting in the suit being decreed.

15. When it comes to filing of the I.As., the case of the respondent/ defendant is that he came to kncv about the suit when E.P. No. 1OO4 of 2024 and E.P. No. I 55 of 2023 for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,94,84O l- were file I and after hling the said E.Ps., when the defendant receiv,:l summons on

17.1O.2O24, he engaged a counsel by name K. Venkataiah and lrled vakalath in E.P. No. 1OO4 of 2024. Therrz fter, he engaged another advocate by name Sri. Deepak Sidhan hi, who filed no objection in E.P. No. 1004 of 2024. Thereafter on verification, the new counsel came to know about the sumr ary suit in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 frled for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,59,666/- with interest at the rate of 12o/o t:r annum under Order XXXVII read with Section 26 Order VII I ules 1 and 2 of the CPC.

16. The defendant has lost his father during covid pandemic and at that time, due to Iinancial difhculties, l-r,: sought financial assistance and took hand loan of Rs.5,OO.t t00/- from the plaintiff through cheque bearing No.O000 15 l -awn on Indian Overseas Bank dated OA.O9.2O2l but not ,f ;.7,00,0OO/- AS claimed in the suit. The defendalt claims to har: signed a blank I I i 1 I ! i I I u I I \) 9 RY,J C. R.P. Nc.522 dirl 552 oJ 2l2S ! promissory note afld blank cheque bearing No.OOO096 on the belief that the plaintiff would reflect the actual loan amount. The plaintiffs brother namely D.Suresh Kumar, used to collect the interest amount of Rs.15,O00/- per month by cash till August, 2Q22. Thereafter, the defendant discovered (he promissory note and cheque have been altered to reflect Rs.7,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Further, the defendant admitted to have received the suit summons on 16.I1.2022 and Sri. K Venkataiah filed vakalath on 21.17.2022 and judgment summons were received on 20.12.2022 but the defendant's counsel, who primarily practices criminal law, did not have adequate knowledge about the civil procedure and therefore, did not file leave to defend petition within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of summons resulting in th.e ex parte decree. 17 . In view of the reasons stated, i.e., counsel, who is practicing criminal law, not having adequate knowledge in civil law resulting in passing of the decree, the delay o{ 672 days in filing the set aside petition IS sought to be condoned and judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 is sought to be set aside. The reason for condoning the delay is denied by the plaintiff who alleged that the defendant had knowledge about the judgment 10 RY,J C.R.P. Nos.S22 aru) 552 of 2025 and decree all along and to demonstrate the rir rne, the plaintiff referred the execution warrant of attachment c ated 12.07.2023 in E.P. No. 255 of 2023 when the bailiff of the lourt visited the residence of the defendant for execution of tt e w.arrant. The defendant resisted execution of warrant ar r convinced the plaintiff with false assurance to pay the decrt,r al amount. The defendant issued a cheque bearing No.OOOOOB < ated 27.O7.2023 from the account of his wife namely Smt. Sanjz na Sambrani for the decretal a-rnount in E.P. No. 255 of 2Oi',, ;. Further, the defendant executed undertaking on 12.07.1'.1 ,23 to pay the dccretal amount and to face civil and penal liati ities in case, the cheque dated 27.O7.2023 is dishonoured. The rl :fendant avoided execution of attachment warrants dated

4.O9.2023 and

04.O3.2024 by moving the movable pro;,( rties from his rcsidence. On frling of E.P. No. 10O4 of 2Oi', , t[-re defendant made appearance and filed counter only to de I ry the execution and avoid attachment of the flat by transferrin6 the flat to third parties and the I.As. are filed under Section i ol the limitation Act to condone the delay of 672 days in filrr g the set aside petition and under Order XXXVIII Rule 4 of thr IPC to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.0l

2023. \ 7L RY'J C.R P. Nos.522 o,,a 552 of2025

18. The version of the {efendant is self contradictory as on one hand, the defendant acknowledges receipt of suit summons on 16.11.2022 and judgment summons on 2O.I2.2O22 and on the other hand, claims to have learned about the ex parte judgment and decree only after receiving notice in E.P. No. 1OO4 of 2024 after appointing K.Venkataiah followed by Deepak Sidhanthi, counsel on his behalf. Having received the suit summons on 16.L1.2022 and judgment summons on

20.11.2022, the defendant would have no locus standi to claim that he had no knowledge about the suit or judgment and decree passed until receipt of notice in the E.P. No. 1004 of 2024. Another reason cited for non-appearance while the summary suit was pending is that the counse[ engaged by name Sri. K.Venkataiah, primarily practices criminal law and had iimited knowledge in civil law and therefore, did not give proper guidance about filing of leave to defend petition within ten (10) days of receipt .of the suit summons emd judgment summons. This reason i.e., lack of knowledge on the part of the counsel for the defendant about civil procedure could have been considered in case there are no other incriminating facts to show that the defendant had no knowledge about the judgment and decree. To \ the contrary in the instant case, [he record shows that the L2 c.R P flos.s22 .,1d ss2 ol ::ils () decree was passed on O9.OL.2O23 and then Er. r. No. 255 of 2023 was filed for recovery of the decretal . mount and that attachment of movable property was order: l on 15.06.2023. The said execution warrarlt was resiSted anc the bailiff of the Court submitted a report which reads as follorv ;: "RePort !, K c!:lriBabu, baitiff of ccc, Hsd , o.ath as follows tLnt I had_ been to tie g ,llaryss premises Along uith DHR"( 07/ 2023, there said. Jdl present at , t .2/ rhen I shoutn the hon,ble Co"i iii, explain its contents. When I asked to , u1rrayt amount. He failed so o, p", tllen I utas going to attach the mouibk, tArng rn the jdr premises, He resi.sted. so not exea,tte the tuarrant, ;tate on uen Jdr n date he time nt and ,aa the orders zrticles I could Hence, unexecuted-" tDatrant retume_l,. as (ver: rtim reproduced)

19. There is another document titled ur Certaking dated 12.07.2023, w.herein, the defendant had given ar undertaking to pay decretal amount and issued the cheque in his .vife,s narne uiz.. Smt. Sanjana Sambrani uide cheque bearing Ii I.OO00O8 dated 27.O7.2023 for Rs.8,38,5O0/_. The defendan., has given an undertaking to face civ and criminar action in casrr the said cheque is dishonourecl_ The said undertaking is extracte < and produced belou': 13 "Undertokina RY,J c R.P. Nos 522 u(J ss2 of 2o2s Doted:12/7/2O23 I, Sanjay Sambrani, S/o. Late. Sidhar Sambrani R/o. Flat No.102, Jaga Niuos, Vijaynagar Colong, H.No.1O-2-317/ 8, Hgderabad, todag issued my uife Cheque namelg SanjanaSambrani oide Cheque No.OOOO08 dated.27-07-2o23 for Rs. 8, 38, 5OO/' (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirtg Eight Tlnusand Fiue Hundred only) draun on HDFC Bank MallepolLg, Vijagnagar Colong in FuIl and Final Settlement to Sri.D.Krishna Kumar, Decree Holder in E.P.No.255/2O23 in O.S. No.4712/2022 on the Jile of D{ Junior Ciuil Judge, CCC Hgderabad, If tte aboue Cheqte is not cleared, Aou are at libertg to take Ciuil and Ciminal action against myself & mA utfe." I I I l (verbatim reProduced) The above mentioned bailiff return report and 20. undertaking of the defendant clearly demonstrate that the dclendant had knowledge about the judgment and decree from the time of tiling of E.P. No. 255 of 2023 and receiving notice in the said E.P. The defendant resisted attachment of movable properties

21. and moved away movables to avoid attachment. In the circumstances, the second E.P. i.e., E.P. No.1O04 of 2024 was liled seeking attachment of the residential flat of the defendant. At that time, I.As. under the revision petitions were filed. The defendant did not make any attempt to challenge the judgment and decree in June,2023 when he received notices in E.P. No. 255 of 2023 which .\: L4 C-R.P. Nos.S22 6Lt 552 ol2o2 5 *r., [) was filed seeking attachment of movables. No c,r fence was taken about fabricating the promissory note to indica :e Rs.7,00,0O0/- when loan taken was only Rs.5,00,000/-. In his rwn handwriting, the defendant has given undertaking to pay the clr cretal amount of Rs.8,38,500/-. The defence of fabrication of promis iory note and the cheque is made for the flrst time at the time of iling of the I.As. under the revision petitions.

22. In view of the aforementioned dis<:, rssed facts ald circumstances, it is borne by record that thr defendant had knowledge about thc judgment and decree datec

09.01.2023 from the time of receiving the judgment summons date<

20.12.2023 and receipt of notice in E.P. No. 255 of 2023 when wa arant was issued for attachment of movables. Some attempts wer(l made to pay the decretal amount b_v issuing the cheques and w:i .ten undertaking dated I2.O7.2O23. Therefore, to claim that the : :fendant learned about the judgment and decree in the summary srL t only in the year 2024 :upon receipt of notice in E.P. No. 1OO4 of 20 14 is nothing but concocted storv cre ated for the purpose of condon:.r .g the delay. The defendant not onl_\. failed to show sufhcient caus : but the record also demonstrates that the defendant did not ap1 roach the Court with clean hands. Any person who approaches the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to any relief. Tl-: -'refore, the trial Il El 15 c.R.P. Nos 522 od ss2 oI2O2s Court ought to have denied the relief sought in the I.As. under the revision petitions. The trial Court completely ignored the contents of the counter frled by the plaintiff. It appears that the impugned orders are passed without perusing the aJfidavit and the counter filed by the respective parties.

23. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders dated 31.12.2024 passed in LA. Nos.627 and 628 ol 2024 in O.S. No. 4772 of 2022 by the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand close d I SD/-S MALLIKARJUNA SSISTANT RE RAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. Hvdera 2. One CC to Sri M Mehboob Ali, Advocate tOiUCl 3. One CC to Sri V Atchuta Ram, Advocate [OpUCj 4. Two CD Copies bad. ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 27ll$l2t25 COMMON ORDER CRP Nos:522 and 552 OF 2025 ro( IlE S TA l J c i i{ \R 2ll,t * )

2. L-,r * ALLOWING BOTH THE CRPs b