High Court · 2025

...Respondents/ Respondentsr/ Respondents/Defendants. IA NO: l OF 2024 Petition under Or. 39 Rr.1 & 2 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents and their agents from alienating, not to interfere and not to encroach with the petitioner's peacefui possession and enjoyment of the schedule property shown in the schedule annexed to the petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Venumadhav. Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER HON'RLti SITI .IUS'I'ICE I-AXMI NARAYANA AI,ISIIBTTY CI\/II, I{E,VISION PI]TI'ION NO.93 I ol:2024 ORDER: This (livil Revision Petition is lrled againsr t rc order dated I I .01.2024, passed b1, thc I Additional Distr-ict Judgc at Nalgonda in C.M.A. No.8 o1202 l.

2. Ijeald Sri K.Vcnu Madhar,, lcarncd counscl fbr.Lhe p:titioner. and Sri {)aslran.r Ravinder. t{eddy, learncd counsel fbr. the rcspondcnts.

3. The pctitionel is the plaintilT and the rcsporrclcnts are the del-endants in tltc suit. Iiot'cortvcnicncc, hereinafter _he parties arc relcrred to as thcl,atc arraved in thc suit.

4. Briet- lircts ol thc casc are that plaintil'l- jllecl suit in O.S.No. l0-i ol' 20 I I to declare Agreernent ot' S,alc-curn-GpA bearing No.74 l8 of l0l I. datcd 06.06.10 I I as nLrll and void eLud also lor perpetLtal iniunction aqainst the del-enclants irr re:;pect oI the su it sch.3dulc propert)/.

5. Defendants cntercd appeat.ancc filed n,rittt.:n statement, issucs were fianred and thr: lnattcl.was coming up fbr trial, and was posted on i12.09.2017 conditionally for.evidcnce of plaintiff. r)n

22.09.2017 plaintiff lailcrl to aclducc evidcncc and r.equested tbr '--2 2 LNA, J CRP.No.93l o12024 adjourntnent. -l-he trial Court dismissed the suit for default with an observation that ttiough the suit rvas coming up for evidence of piaintilfsincel0.04.20l4,anddespiteconditionalorderthatinthe event ptaintiff lails to adcluce cvitlt'nce, suit wili be dismissed' the ptaintilldid not get ready and thus dismissed suit' 6. Plaintiflfiled l.A.No.l0l t o12017 lorrestoration ofsuit' In the affidavit filed in supporl ol application, it is averred that petitioncr could not appear bclorc the Court as she was sufl'ering from itl-health and also, there rvere heavy rains at Hyderabad and thus prayed to restore the suit. l'he dclendant Nos. t and 2 llled counter resisting the 7. application and contcnded that there is no iota of truth in the contentions ol- the ptaintifl that she was suffering with ill-health and there rvas heavy rain at Flydcrabad on 22'09 '20 I 7 and that with an intention to drag on the matLcr' plaintiff wantonly allowed the suit to be dismissed ar.rd thus, played to dismiss the application'

8. The triat Courr considering the contentions of both the parties, dismissed the application vide otder dated 2j '12'2020 with afe mentioned in the affidavit an observation that no grounds I I i i I I I I -) LNA, J (.-RP.No.93l of 2024 showing the bona fides to set aside the dismiss al order dated

22.09.2017 and that the application is devoid o1'any n.rerir

9. Aggrieved by the ordel dated 23.12.2020, pl:rinrilf ;:ref-erred appeal vide C.M.A. No.8 of 2021 and thc firsr appeilate Court vide impugned order dated 11.01.2024 disrnisscd thc (l.lv{.A wirh an observation that the trial Court already disrnissed :he application basing on the material on record and that plaintill v,ras nol vigilant in pursuing thc lnatter and that uo su{ficicnt calrsc l-ras been shown for not adducing evideucc on behallof'plarutifl'tion: 2?.0L2014 to

22.09.201'7. Aggrieved by the same, the present revir,;ior.r is filed.

10. Learned counsel for thc pctil-ioncr sLrbmits that the suit was dismissed for default on 22.09.20 l7 and irnrncdiatelv .within a period of 15 days application rvas filed lor restor-atiolr of suit narrating the reasons for hcr absencc on 22.09.20 l7 and that the application was pending fbr adjudication lirr a pcriot olthr.ee years and was rrltimately dismissed on 23.12.2020. I.le rvould further submit that thc trial Court ought to havc provided an opportunity to the petitiorrer to lead cvidencc sincc valuable rishts in im novable property are involved. He fu(hel submitted that tht..trial ,Court as well as the appellate Coun lailed to exercise thc discretionary 4 LNA' J CRP.No.93 I oI2024 powers vested on them and erroneously dismissed the petition' He furlher submitted that the suit was posted lor evidence and despite specific direction lrorn the t tigti Court not to pass any advet'se orders during Covid period, the appellate Coum dismissed the - C.M.A., and finally, prayed to allow the Civit Revision Petition' Along with revision petitior.r, the petitioner has also filed a few medical bills dated 1:1.12 2018 and 27'09 2018' ll.Perconlrtt.lear.rrcdcounsclforthercspondentswould subrnit that thc trial coufi and first appellate court rightly dismissed the application since the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence despitc conditional order' He rvould further submit that the suit was cot.uing up lor cvidence o1- plaintiff since 22 01'2014 and as the ptaintifl was not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter, the trial coufl and tlrst appellate court rightly dismissed the suit as well as appeal tle would {urther submit that even in the application for restoratiou of suit, no proper reason was assigned and ptaintiff failed to explain as to why she could not adduce evidence since 22.0 I'2014 and also specific rcasons for non- appearance on 22.09.2017 IJe finally subn.ritted that the revision is devoid of merits ancl hence, the samc is liabte to hc dismissed' "*:,:#y 5 I--NA, J (RP.No.93l oJ' 2024

12. A perusal of the record would disclose that the suit was coming up for evidence of plaintifl tiom 22.t)l 2OI4 and was posted on 22.09.2017 conditionally lor cvidcnc,: of plaintifL However, neithcr the plaintifl appcared rlor- cvrdcrrc: rvas adduced on that date and therefore, thc trial Court dismiss:d the suit for delault as plaintiff was not evincing anl, intercsl in pursuing the matter. E',/en in the application filed lor restoration ol'suit, except saying that the petitioner was sullering frou.r ill-hcalth and that there were hcavy rains in l{yderabad. no prol)er reason or explanation has been offered by thc plaintil'l' for non, appearance on

22.09.201i' and also the reasons for. not adducing r.:vidence since

22.01.2014. Admittedly, the sLrit rvas corlirlg up f,rr eviclcnce of plaintilf since 22.01.2014, despite conditio.al or.der., :laintiff tailed to adduce evidence on 22-09.2011 and again timc ., r,as sought on his behatf and fufther the plaintiff lailed to subsra,riare thc reason fbr her absence on 22.09.2017 by producing an.. material on record..

13. The;nedical record placed before this Court b1 the petitioner plaintiff would only indicates that she is a cliabctic paticnt and she was advised to lbllow up diabetic diet and do phvs ical e;<ercises I t 6 . LNA, J CRP.No.93l oJ 2024 n etc. and thus, the plaintilf was not sulfering with any serious health lssue.

14. In the light of the foregoing leasons, this Court does not find any illegatity or inlirmity in tlie irnpugned older warrantlng interference by this Court and as such, this Civil Rcvision Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed' I5. Accordingly, this Civil Rcr ision Pctition is dismissed' There shall be no order as to cosls' Pending miscellaneor'rs applications' if any' shall stand closed. SD/-A. JAYASREE ST T REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional DistrictJudge, Nalgonda. -. - i. O"" CC to Sri K.Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] S. O"" CC to Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy' Advocate 4. Two CD CoPies. rCK/PSL loPUCl

0.n \ft- HIGH COURT DATED:O9 /06/2025 ORDER CRP.No.931 o1202.4 Dismissing the C.lL.P. without costs ( 21 q Lr- /''' -'--- ,' ,: --:. ..,,i1.. \ t.:\ lia)i'l 1E t, ,-r \\ .', tr '17 t.\*. '\ ' ..;,_ fiEP 206 ! . .1 ,., -- + -'.' ,i/ J --:/ t.tlt