The High Court · 2025

... Respondents/plaintiffs lA NO: 2 oF 2024 Petition under section 151- of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, tn"e High corrt mav'te pr"r"J't" suspend the operation of the decree dated 30.12.20113 passed 6.s. li". z6s 2013 on the fire of the Sub Divisionar Magistrate and speciar n""i.trni ng.nt, "f Mobile cou rt, Bhadracharam, Bhadrad ri Kothagudem oi"irlt, p""oirffi;il'"i'" main CRP. / Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl KONDAPARTHI SRINIVASA Counsel for the Respondent Nos'2 & 3 : SRI P V KRISHNAMAGHARY The Court made the following: ORDER n THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAI(MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY ctuL REVISIO N PETIT ION No.137O of 2o.24 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is fiied assailing the Order dated 30.12.2013 in O.S.No.269 of 2013, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), at Bhadrachalam, suit filed by the respondents was wherein and whereby the decreed.

2. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned Counsel lor the petitioner ald Sri P.V.Krishnamachary, learned Counsel for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case as contended by the petitioner are that petitioner is the wife of one Chidem Nageswara Rao and their marriage was perforrned as per the customs in the Koya community and they lived together as wife and husband at Mamidigudem; that out of their wedlock they were blessed with a baby girl; that later Chidem Nageswara Rao got employment as V.A.O at Albaka and addicted to all sorts of vices and started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally and necked her out from matrimonial house and she was not provided with shelter, food and cloth etc. Therefore, she liled an application 2 seeking maintenance uide M.C.No.6 of 1999, against Chidem Nagesu.ara Rao, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam (for short 'Mobile Court'), that Chidem Nagesu,ara Rao entered appearance and hled counter resisting the said appiication.

4. The Mobile Court, on due consideration of pleadings and contentions put forth by both the parties, awarded a sum of Rs.500/ - each per month to lhe petitioner and her daughter towards maintenance. The sard Chidem Nageswara Rao expired on 30.08.2012; and the respondents herein, who are father and brothers of Chidem Nageswara Rao, fi1ed a suit ulde O.S.No.269 of 2O13, before the Mobile Court, to declare them as legal heirs of the deceascd Chidem Nageswara Rao; that the Mobile Court uide impugned Order dated 30 .12 .20 13, decreed the suit and declare<l the respondents as 1egal heirs of the deceased Chidem Nagesu,ara Rao and further declared that respondents are cntitled to receive all the emoluments of the deceased from the Government Authorities. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred the present revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondents obtained decree without making the petitioner as o 3 party to the suit, by suppressing the fact that petitioner along with her daughter frled M.C.No.6 of 7999, before the same Court and they were granted monthly maintenance of Rs.5O0/_ each. He further submitted that the trial Court without conducting trial and without marking any document passed a non_speaking Order and the same is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that under the guise of decree passed by the trial Court, respondent No.3 got employment and enjoying the benefits of the deceased, therefore, prayed [o allow the revision petition.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that against the decree passed by the trial Court, appeal lies under Rde 4T (2) of the AplTG Agency Rules 1924 (for short the ActJ, within a period of six weeks as per Rule 56 of the Act. However, the petitioner after lapse of 11 years, filed the revision petition with false and frivolous grounds, without hling the delay application and even did not assign any reason for the inordinate delay. He further submitted that revision petition filed under Section 222 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, when there is an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 115 of CpC and Agency Rules. He a-lso submitted that petitioner filed different cases against the deceased and harassed the deceased in many ways, but after the death of the 4 deceasecl petitioner came into picture and seeking death benefits etc. He further submitted that petitioner filed M C'No 6 of 1999, seeking maintenance and the deceased filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and also denying the relationship with the petitioner and also liled an appeal against the Order of the tnal Court in MC and pending adjudiczrtion of the appeal, deceased expired on 30 08'2012 and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision petition' coNSIDERATION:. 7 . Pr:rusal of the record would disclose thal petitioner herein is claiming to be the wife of deceased Chidem Nagesu'ara Rao and she has fiicd a maintenance case in M'C'No'6 of 1999 before Mobile Court, claiming maintenance to her as well as to her daughter. In the said maintenance case, the deceased Chidem Nageswara Rao hled counter denying the allegation and marital status. However, the Mobile Court, on due consideration of matr:ria1 placed on record has come to the conclusion that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Chidem Nageswara Rao and that petitioner No.2 therein was born out of their wedlock and awarded maintenance of Rs.5O0/- per month each From the record it appears that an appeal has been preferred by the deceased, however, during pendency of the appeal, deceased 5 expired, therefore, the orders passed in M.c.No.6 0f lggg have become final B. It is not in dispute that respondents have filed a suit uide O.S.No.269 of 2OI3 before the Mobile Court to declare them as legal heirs of Chidem Nageswara Rao and interestingly, in the said suit, the petitioner has not been the party and in fact, the said suit was Iiled against .,to whom so ever it may concern,, and there was no contest to the said suit and the same was decreed on 30.12.2013.

9. The decree dated 30.12.2013 in O.S.No.269 of 2O13, passed by the Mob e court is cryptic and there is no reference to pleadings, evidence nor reasons have been recorded. The decree is silent as to whether any evidence has been adduced or any documents are filed and marked. In fact, only a decree was passed by the trial Court without any Judgment, which is contrary to established procedure and principle of law. Further, there is clear non-application of mind on the part of the Mobile Court. Further, respondents having knowledge about the claim of the petitioner as well as the Orders passed in M.C.No.6 of 1999, did not make the petitioner as party to the said suit. Thus, there is clear suppression and misrepresentation on the 6 ,i part of respondents in filing the suit and have obtained decree bY Plaf ir-rg fraud. lO.ItisrelevanttorefertoJudgmentgftheHon'bleApex Court in S.P.Chengalaaraga Naidu Vs' Jagannath' r wherein' it is held that " Judgment or d'ecree obtoined bg fraud has to be treatecl as nullitA and- can be questioned euen in collateral proceedings". The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that "the principle of 'ftnolity of litigation' cannot be pressed to the extent of suchanabsurditythatitbecomesdnengineoffraudinthe hands of clishonest titigants' The Courts of lanu are meant for imporling justice betu'teen the parties' One utho comes to the Cour1, m.ust come tuith clean hands' We are constrained to sag that more ofien than not, process of the Court is being abused' Properlg qrabbers, tax-euad-ers, bank loan-dodgers and other unscntpulous persons from all u'talks of tife find the Court process a conuenient leuer to retoin the itlegol gains inde.ftnitelg '"

11. [n the present case, as mentioned supra the same Mobile Court.hasallowedtheM.C.No.6oflgggfiledbythepetitioner herein,andhascometoconclusionthatpetitioneristhelegally wedded wife of the deceased Chidem Nageswar Rao and that a ' (199,r) r scc 1 7 child was also born out of their wedlock and awarded malntenance to both the petitioner as well as the child uide Order dated 72.L2.2OOO and the same has become final. Further, the respondents filed the suit for declaration by suppression and misrepresenta tion of the facts and obtained ex- parte decree by piaying fraud on the Court. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court that a decree obtained by respondents by playing fraud is nulrity and the contention raised by the respondents that petitioner has alternate remedy of filing the appeal and that Lhe re is delay of 1 1 years in filing the revision petition are untenable and are rejected. consequently, the decree obtained by the respondents dated 30.12.2073 in O.S.No.269 of 2O13, is non_est in law and is liable to be set aside. CONCLUSI ON:- 12. In view of the facts and circumstances ol. the case and above discussion, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and the decree dated 30.L2.2013 in O.S.No.269 of 2O13 passed by the Mobile Court, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Mobile Court with a direction to adjudicate the matter afresh by impleading the petitioner herein as party to the said suit and the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to tile written a I I 8 statement/ counter and also place material on record The Mobile Court shall decide the matter on its orvn merits in accordance rvith law, duly affording an opportuuity of heartng and shail pass a reasoned Order. There shall be no order as to COStS. M jscellaneous petitions pending, i[ an5', shal1 stand closed. SD/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR N'' //TRUE COPY// i ,. \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 fi"'t The Sub Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam One CC to SRI KONDAPARTHI SRINIVASA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI P V KRISHNAMACHARY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies ADK/PSL \ t HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 ORDER CRP.No.1370 of 2024 L ,; A ..( lBSTPM al I ijF, ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS