The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants (Respondents 2,3 and 4 are proforma Parties) l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009 (CMAMP. NO:383 oF 2009) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ciroL mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to stay of execution of the ex-part judgment dated 30.06.2006 in O.S,No. 30 of 2000 on the f ile of the Judge: Family Court, Secunderabad pen Jing the disposal of the above a ppeal Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Bharath Chandra Madas representing Sri. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri Counsel for the Respondent : The Court delivered the following: , /\ THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA THE HON,BLE JUSTICIN&DI PRAVEEN KUMAR CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2O4 of 2OO9 \.4t..Bharal.h chandra l\4a.las, lcarncd coutlscl rePrescnting \4r'srinivasa Rao Boddaluri learncd counsci appearing for lhc itppellanr' JUDGMENT: (Per Hotl'ble'lustice Moushumi B|tattqcharyq) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order dated 06.1 1.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad ('Trial CourtJ in I.A.No.616 of 2006 in O S No 30 of 2000' filed by the appellant under Order iX Rule 13 and Order XVII Rule 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPCJ for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2006.

2. The appellant is the defendant No'4 in the Suit (O'S No'30 of 2O0O) filed by the respondent No' 1/plaintiff for recovery of an amount ofRs.28,47,967.75ps.,fromthedefendantNos.1to4jointlyand severally along u'ith future interes L (9 24% per annlrm and costs' Learned counsel appearing for the appellant claims that after 3. the Trial Court passed Lhe ex parte decree in the Suit on 30'06'2006' the appellant filed l.A.No.616 of 2006 on 29 07 2006 for setting aside the said ex parte decree. Counsel submits that the appellant's Advocates prepared a Written Statement denying the involvement of the appellant/ defendant No'4 and obtained the signatures of the 2 MB,J & GPK,J CMtt..No.2O4 of 2OO9 appellant on the Wntten Statement 'lhc appel.lant uas later informed that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 remained ex pctr.te and that the defendant No.4 ra,as the soie contesting defendant in t.he Suit. The appellant,s Advocates also gave an impression to the appellant that the Suit was misconceived and the appellant has a 3ood chance of success in the Suit

26. 06.2006, the ass rrecl by his

4. According to counsel, the appellant was Advocates at all material times. However on appellant suddenll, received information that the Suir .l'rts posted [or judgmen t on 30.06.2006, on which date the mancr rvas closed without any representation on behalf ol the appellant. The appellant thereafter made serious a,egations against his erstu.r ire Aclvocates with regard to forging his signatures on the alficlavits a nd puts the entire blame on his erstwhile Advocates for the non-reprcsr:nta Lion. 5. The above submissions would also be borne cllt from the Affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant in the Application lLnder Order iX Rule 13 of the CpC for setting aside the ex parte rle,cree dated

30.06.2006 6 The Proceeding Sheets show that the respondent No 1/plaintiff The respondent No:i.2 to 4 are was not represented in the Appeal -- 3 MB,J & GPK,.T CIYIA.No.2O4 oJ 2OO9 proforma parties to the Appeal, as reflected in the Cause Tit1e. The proof of service shows that the notice sent to the respondent No.1 was returned as 'nol claimed .

7. Thc Proccerding Shccts further re flect that the appellant rvas granted interim stay ol execution of the ex parle clccree dated

30.06.2006 by a Co-ordinate Bench on 06.03.2009 and the stay is contrnuing till date. The Appeal u'as listed before a Co-ordinate Bench on 06.08.2025 whereby the Co-ordinate Bench directed the matter to be listed under the caption 'For Dismissal'. The Appeal was listed before this Bench on 2O.O8.2O25 on which date the appellant remained un-represented. On the returnable date, counsel appearing for the appellant sought for time. The matter was thereafter heard on

22.O8.2025 and was reserved for Judgment.

8. Since no one appeared for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, we have considered the case of the appellant and perused the material on record for adjudication of the instant Appeal. We have also carefully perused the impugned order dated 06.1 1,2008. g . The primary poin t for adjudication is r.t'hether the impugned order dismissing the appellant's Application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.O6.2006 calls for interference. 4 r!.(B,J &, GPK,J CMA.IT'o.2O oJ 2OO9 1 i j I l \ \l\l\

10. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order records the relevant facts which culminated in dismissal ol the appellant's Application' The facts as recorded by the Trial Court are stated belou'. (a) An ex panle order was passed in the Suit agrinst the appellant/ delendant No.4 on 28.03.2000 r,t'hich was later set aside by orde r dated 1 8, 12 .2O0O pa.ssed in l.A.No,1842 of 2000 and consequenll, the appellant filed his Written Statement. (b) On 03. 12 .2OO4, the appellant iiled his 'lhief Aflidavit as PW. 1 in I.A.No.616 of 2006 and Adv,.lcate Commissioner was appointed to record the eviclence of both sides on 23.03.2005 and the Commis sioner Report was filed on 25.10.2005. (c) The appellant/ defendant No.4 was again s,:t ex parte on 27 .12.2005 and the matter was pos trld to

30.12.2025 for judgment. The judgment was pronounced on that date. (d) The e-r parte decree was set asidc on 08.0.].2006 on a condition of the appellant cross-examin i r,3 thc ) MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.2O4 oJ 2OO9 respondent No.l/plaintiff on 14.O3.2006. The appellant failed to comply with the said condition and the plaintiffs evidence was closed on 14.03.2006 and the matter was posted for defendant's evidence. The defendanl's evidence n.as closed on 17.03.2006 and the matter r,",as posred to 27 .O3.2006 for judgment. (c) The :rppellar.rt/delendant No.4 filed I.A.Nos.235 and 349 ol 2006 to reopcn Lhe evidence of PW.1 and recall PW. 1, respectivelr-. Both the I.As were dismissed on 23.06.2006 and decree u'as passed on

30.06.2006. (0 The appellant made serious allegations against his counsel including of forging the appellant's signature in I.A.Nos.235 and 349 of 2006. However, the appellant failed to avail of the opportunity given to him for cross-examining PW.1 (plaintiff in the Suit) (e) The appellant/PW. I (petitioner in I.A.No.616 of 2006) in his crcss-examination admitted to failing to appear before the Court after filing the Written Statement and passing of decree on 30.06.2006. 6 )WB,J & GPK,J CMA.tVt't.2O4 oJ 2OO9 (h) The impugned order also records thr I the evidence of appellant as PW.1 shows that he rlid not file any correspondence to prove that he consnltt d his Advocate :egarrding the progress of the cersc, ,r:; \\.rs contended in the Alfidavit. Further the ( ross- examination of PW.1/appellant also shou,s that I'e did not file any complaint against his erstwhilc a( \rocaLe ior forgerl or otheru'ise. Moreover, PW.2 (ap1 , aring lor the appellant/ defendant No.4) stated 11 at hc inlormed PW.1 on 26.06.2006 that the cas.' \\'as posted for judgment on 30.06.2006. Howev|r, the appellant chose not to appear before the Corrrt lor taking necessary steps. (i) The Trial Court found that .the appellan r had denied signatures in the trvo LAs. only for the pLrrpose ol filing I.A.No.616 of 2006 ftrr setting aside e,-r ,rcte decree and that the conduct ol the appcllant rc,,caled th:rt hc u'irs noI diligcr-rt in contesting t]-re Sr.Ljt The 'l'riarl Cotrrt lLccorcirngl.", concluclcs lhat the :Lppt lirnt'-s abscncc $ ils irltentiunul. / 7 MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.2O4 of 2OO9 U) The Trial Courl hence did not give any weightage to Exhibits A.1 (Notice issued to erstwhile Advocate of the appellantl, A.2 (Reply Notice) and A.3 (Postal Cover), filed on behalf of the appellant/ defendant No.4 for the reason that the said Exhibits were filed by the appellant only as an afterthought. (k) The Trial Court accordingly proceeded to dismiss I.A.No.616 of 2006 rvhich was liled by the appellant for setting aside decree dated 30.06.2006. 1 1. Wc hzrve considered thc reasons given by Lhe Trial Court in dismissing the appeliant's Application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2006. The impugned order contains clear reasons for dismissing the appellant's Application. The narration of events in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order shows that the appellant w'as given several opportunities to contest the Suit but failed to show any diligence even thereafter.

12. The first ex parte order dated 28.03.2000 was set aside on

08.l2.2OOO permitting the appellant to file Written Statement. Even after being given an opportunity the appellant did not take any steps to contest the Suit and was hence set ex parte on 27.12.2005. The 8 MB,J & GPK,J CMA. N'o.2O4 oJ 2OO9 Judgment pronounccd thereafter on 30. 12.2005 q,as zrlso se t aside on

08.03.2006 and the appellant again failed to avail of thi:, opportunity. We do not u,ish to repeat the fact since thel' har r alrc:rdv becn narrated above.

13. In view of the above, we do not find any reason tr) interl'ere $'ith the lindings given by the Trial Court since the narratio n o[ events has been taken from the docket proceeclings before th: Trizrl Court Moreover, we hnd that the appellant failed to prove an\ rrf the serious allegations made against his erstwhile Advocates r,'i.h regard to forgery of his signatures. The cross-examination r; I PW. 1 also contains several admissions with regard to the appt ilant s lack of diligence in contesting the Suit

14. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of thc irppellant are not corroborated lrom the records, It is also signil-i :urt that the appellant has bccn enjoving interim sta\' ol' execuLiorr ''l tht ex parte decree datecl 30.0(r.2006 on ancl from Utr.03.2U09 i.e.. Ii r thc last 16 years. The Procee ding Sheets in the pre sent Appeal i.lr.;o show that the appellant has not shown any interest in pursuing r) rc Appeal after obtaining interim stav and is enjoying the same sir-r,:r. 06.03.2009 onwards. 9 MB,J & GPK,J ClwA.No.2O4 of 2OO9

15. We accordingll,' clo not lind any merit in the Appeal or any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.1 1.2008.

16. CMA.No.204 of 2OO9 is accordingly dismissed for the above reasons. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Interim order dated 06.03.2OO9 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs SD/- K.SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUW REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. (With records) 2. one CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies DL/PSL N,/ j I t -r{r 1rl E S14 14: /a'/''a\ -) c (.) \ 25 l'l0\l m6 \.-'.-.'i \i:-- * i) HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.204 of 2009 DISMISSING THE CMA \ q