The High Court · 2025

... Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Order dated 18-11-2021 in l.A.No. 286 of 2020 in O.S.No. 26 ol 2016 on the file of the ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl PRABHAKAR SRIPADA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G ANANDAM The Court made the following: ORDER - IN TEIE HIGH COURT F'OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO DATED THE 22na DAy OF DECEMBER, 2O2S Betwee:n: Dr. Khajrr Najmuddin Subhani Shafath Banu and others . Petitioner-plaintiff And ... Respondents-dcfendants ORDER: 1. This Memorandum of civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India assailing the docket order dated 18.1 1 .2o2r passed in I.A.No.2g6 of 2o2o in o.s.No.26 of 2ot6 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.

2. Petitioner is respondent-plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the petitioners-defendants in I.A.No.2g6 of 2o2o in o.s.No.26 of 20L6.

3. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit in o.s.No .26 of 2016 before learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial against responder t Nos.1 to 3-defendant Nos.1 to 3 for recovery of possessio. and declaration of title of a Tin shed and open place attached t.hereto in sy.Nos.4g and 49 in an area of Ac.o-0g gts., and r -* ..*-:{i - 2 BRMR,J CRP.No.375 of 2022 Ac.O-24 gts., respectively in Municipal door No.1-l-224 in Hajipura - locality within Municipal limits of Korutla proper.

4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3-defendants Nos.1 to 3 liled Vakalath in the suit on 16.11.2016 and the learned trial Court has forfeited the rights of filing of written statement of respondents Nos.l to 3- defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 12.03.2O2O.

5.1 Respondent Nos.l to 3 have lited I.A.No.286 of 2O2O under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC and prayed to set aside the forfeiture of filing of the written statement order dated 12.O3.2O2O and accept the written statement filed by them along with the application.

5.2 Affidavit is sworn by respondent No.3 herein, who deposed on his behalf and also on behalf of other respondents. It is stated in the aflidavit that suit was posted on 12.03.2020 for filing of written statement. Due to ill-health, they could not appear before the Court and his counsel was also absent on the above said date due to personal work, thereby the Court was pleased to forfeit the filing of written statement and prayed to set aside the order.

6. Petitioner, who is respondent in I.A.No.286 of 2O2O has not fited counter, thereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application in I.A.No.286 of 2O2O in o.s.No.26 of 2Ot6 on

18.1 1.2oX\..ihich is impugned in the CRP. e"tJ aJ BRMR,J CRP.No.375 ot 2022 7- Le'arned counsel for the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff submits that the: learned trial court failed to countenance that order IX Rule 7 r>f cPC cannot be invoked to seek enlargement of statuary time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of cPC. In fact, I.A.No.286 of 2o2o is filed after dismissal of I.A.No.I43 of 2o2o, which was filed under Section 14g of cpc for extension of time for filing the written statement. The learned trial court ought not to herve allowed the application and ought not to have extended its judici;a.l discretion in a casuar ma.nner and prayed to set side the impugne<l order. In support of his contentions he relied on the decisions in the cases of i) SCG contracts India private Limited v. KS chamank.ar Infrastructure private Limited and othersl and ii) oku Tech Priv.te Limited v. Sangeet Agarwal and others2.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners-defendants submits that the petitioners failed to file counter in I.A.No .2g6 of 2o2o and thereby the application filed by the respondents came to be allowed- [tr support of his contentions he has relied on the decisions in the casos of i) Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and \ \ t (2or9) 12 SCC 210 2 2OL6 SCC OnLine Del 6601 4 CRP-No.375 of 2022 ' others3 ii) R.K. Roja v U.S. Rayudu and anothera, and Elamkunnapuzha Panchayath and etc., v. Dinkar and etc.,s

9. Heard learned counsels and perused the material on record.

10. Now the point for consideration is: whether the docket order passed by the learned trial court suffers from any perversity or illegatity, if so, does it requires interference of this court or not?

11. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC Online SC 98S).

12. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.26 of 2016 filed suit to declare hi- "" the owner of suit premises and also directing the a.rtga.., ts therein (respondent herein) to deliver the possession ORDER CRP.No.375 ot 2022 DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS l^ct, l3\2-\)-6