The High Court · 2025

Respondents/Plaintiff s

10. The Tahsildar,, Mahabubabad. 11 The R.D.O,, Mahabubabad.

12. The Govt of Through District Collector, Warangal. (As per E.P., Respondent No.3, 6 to 8 are represented by their GPA holder, By name Pallepangu Maheshwari, Respondent No.5 herein) (The Respondent No.g, 1 0 to '12 are not necessary parties in this Revision Petition) Respondents/Defendants tA NO 1 0F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings in E.P.No.18/2022 in O.S.No.2Ogl2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District, Telangana State, pending disposal of CRP, in the interest ofjustice, and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between 1 . Pallepangu Perumaiah, (Died per LRs, DHR No.S to8) 2. Pallepangu Anasurya,, Wo Late Perumaiah, a/a 58 years, R/o PaMathagiri Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District-506 1 04.

3. Bandla Umadevi,, Wo Upender, a/a 40 years, Rep.by her GPA, Pallepangu Malleshwari, Ryo PaMathagiri Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District- 506104 4 Pallepangu Lachamma,, Wo Late Mallaiah, a/a 78 Occ. Agriculture, R/o Parwathagiri Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad Diskic!506104

5. Pallepangu Malleshwari,, D/o Late Perumaiah, a/a 37 years, Occ House Wife, R/o Parwathagiri Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District-506104.

6. Bandla Jyothi,, W/o Lenin Prathap, a/a 35 years, Rep.by her GPA, Pallepangu Malleshwari. Ryo Parwathagiri Mllage and Mandal, Mahabubabad District 506104 I I I I 7 Bandla Kavitha,, W/o Viplav Sinha, a/a 33 years, TRep.by Pallepangu Malleshwari, fuo Parwathagiri Village and Mandal, Ma District-506'l 04. her GPA, habubabad

8. Pallepangu Aruna Kumari,, D/o Late Perumaiah, a/a 30 years, Rep.by her GPA, Pallepangu Malleshwari, R/o Parwathagiri Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District-5061 04. ... Respondents/Petitioners AND

1. Donikenp Anasurya, Wo D. Narsaiah, aged 36 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o Pdrwathagiri Mllage and Mandal and District, Telangana State- 506101.

2. Donikene Sreevathnika,, D/o D. Narsaiah, aged 22 yearc, Occ House Wife,

3. Donikene Sreevani,, D/o D. Narsaiah, aged 20 years, Occ. House Wife, All R/o Panrvathagiri Village and Mandal and District, Telangana State- 506101. All R/o. PaMathagiri Village & Mandal, Telangana State-506101 Petrtioners/Respondents

4. Denkana Narsaiah,, S/o Sathaiah,a/a 41 years, R/o Parwathagiri Respondents/Plaintiffs

5. The Tahsildar,, Mahabubabad. 6. The R.D.O,, Mahabubabad. 7. The Govt of Through District Collector, Warangal Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted in CRP No 1368 of 2025 dated 16/06/2025 . Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. P Venkanna Counsel for the Respondents: Narasimha Rao Pulugu Counsel for the Respondent l+os.2,3,5 to 8: N.V.R.Ra.iya Laxmi The Court made the following: ORDER 7 9i5" crp_l368-2025 N8(,1 // THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH EMAPAKA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.l368 of 2025 ORDER: The plaintiffs I to 4 filed the Suit, O.S.No.209 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Mahabubabad, against the defendants No.l to 20, seeking declaration that the plaintiffs I to 4 as owners and possessors of the Suit Schedule properties (mentioned in Schedules A to D ofthe plaint) and to grant perrnanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 17 and any persons acting on their behalf, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintifls in regard to the suit schedule properties, and to direct the det-endants No.l8 to 20 to rectiff the pahanies in consequence of the above declaration. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants tried to illegally trespass and occupy the suit properties, and the plaintiffb therefbre amended the suit prayer to recovery ofpossession. I .l Notices were served on the defendants, however, they remained ex parte. The triat Court, after appreciating the oral evidence of PWs. I to 3, and documentary evidence Exs.Al I to Al7 adduced on behalf of the plaintitfs, partly-decreed the suit without costs by by Judgment and Decree dated 18.10.2021 declaring the plaintiffs as owners and possessors ofSchedule A. B, C and D properties and directed the defendants to vacate and handover the suit schedule properties and handover the same to the plaintifli within trvo months.

1.2 Thereafter, the defendants filed an application, I.A.No.327 of 2022 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, and the plaintiffs filed their counter to the application, whereupon the trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.l27 of 2022 by observing that there are no merits in the application 2 .rp_1368_2025 NBK,I filed by the defendans. Challenging the same, the defendants filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge, at Mahabubabad, vide C.M.A.No.7 of 2023, and the said CMA is pending before the District Judge.

1.3 Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an execution petition, E.P.No.lE of 2022 for execution of the decree. The E.P. was posted for counter and hearing on Ol .6A.ZOZq. However, the defendants did not attend the Court proceedings allegedly due to bus inconvenience. The trial Court set the defendants ex parte.

1.4 The defendants, thereafter, filed an application, E.A.No.7 of 2024 seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 07.02.2024. The trial Court, by referring to Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and by following the law laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendrakumar Gandhir, dismissed the application filed by the defendants vide Order dated

18.03.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed this civil revision petition.

2. Heard Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel tbr the petitioners/defendants; and Smt. N.V. Rajya Lakshmi, leamed counsel for the plaintiffVrespondentsNo.2,3,5to 8. Perusedthe record. Forthe sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as plaintiffi and def-endants.

3. Leamed counsel for the defendants (i.e., petitioners) contends that substantial rights are involved in the suit schedule properties and the trial Court faited to consider the same while decreeing the suit on 28.10.202 I by setting the defendants ex parte; that the trial Court tbiled to consider the aspect that the defendants are in physical possession and enjoyment ol the property; that the trial Court failed to appreciate that an appeal is pending I (2021) 6 SCC 418 3 crp-1368_2o25 NAK.I before the District Court, against the dismissal order dated 09.08.2022 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.327 of 2022 filed by defendants seeking to set aside the ex parte decree; that the main suit itself was decided ex parte and an appeal in CMA No.7 of 2023 is pending and therefore the trial Court ought to have allowed the impugned order in E.A.No.7 of 2024 in the interest ofjustice. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs (i.e., respondents) contends that the

4. defendants have intentionally been absent to the Coud proceedings and they have not adduced any reliable evidence with regard to their rights over the suit schedule properties, and the ptaintiffs have testified before the trial Court and also adduced the documentary evidence and the ffial Court have rightly appreciated the fact that the defendants are intentionally prolonging the Court proceeclings without any matter of right over the properties and therefore there is no illegality in the dismissal of the application E.A.No.7 of 2024 by the impugned order; and therefore the civil revision petition is liable to be disnr issed.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be ntxed that the case of the defendants is that one Pallepangu Perumaiaih re t'erred the matter to the elders for settlement of the dispute, and the husband ol plaintilf No.2 promised assured that they will not proceed with the suit, and believing his words the defendants went to Hyderabad lor livelihood and settled there; and after the death ofhusband of plaintifl' No.l, the rernaining plaintiffs proceeded with the suit proceedings without the knowledge ofthe defendants, and after the ex parte decree was passed against the defendants, the plaintiffs went to the land and tried to occupy the same and on knowing the same, the defendants filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. \\ 4 crp_1368-2025 N8( J

6. It is to be noted that notices were issued to the defendants at the time of amending the suit to that of recovery of possession, and further when the defendants remained ex parte, another notice was issued to the defendants on 21.01.2022, and also to defendants 19 and 2O (govemment authorities) who received the notices. Admittedly the defendants (udgment debtors) did not comply with the decree. Further, except the averment that the husband of plaintilf No.2 promised that they will not proceed with suit proceedings, there is no cogent reason or evidence adduced by the defendants about their alleged right over the properties. Further, the reason ofbus inconvenience to attend the Court proceedings is not a ground for setting aside a decree. Furthermore, mere filing of an appeal before the appellate Court does not impede the.judicial course of action that flows from a decree, unless an order of stay has been passed against such decree by the appellate Court. When the defendants allege substantial rights are involved, they ought to have been diligent in pursuing the proceedings by adducing the evidence in respect of their case. Further, the documents Exs.Al to A17 filed by the ptaintitfi in support of their case are not in dispute and the trial Court have appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Mercly taking the plea ol an oral promise or an undocumented elderly compromise, without there being an admitted documentary material in support of such contention, such contentions do not stand legal scrutiny.

7. Further, as per Order 9 Rule 7 CPC envisages that there should be good cause for the party for its non-appearance on the date of hearing, to convince the Court that the absence was not intentional. In the instant case. the defendants rely on an alleged oral "promise and assurance" ol the husband of plaintiff No.2 wherein the husband of ptaintifi No.2 has altegedly assured that the plaintiffs would not proceed with the suit. Be that 5 crP_1368_2O25 NSK, J I / as it may, nothing prevented the defendants to file the documentary evidence in support of their rights over the properties and contest the suit, and the reason for non-attendance for the Court proceedings is because of bus inconvenience, and there is no interim order in favour of the defendants in the CMA No.7 of 2023 staying the decree ofthe trial Court; and the evidence filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court has not been rebutted by any cogent evidence by the defendants. Unless and until the appellate Court directed stay of the decree, merely filing an appeal and pendency of appeal does not halt the due process of law in consequence ofthe decree. The tial Court has therefore rightly dismissed the E.A.No.7 of 2024 through the impugned order and there are no valid grounds for interfering with the impugned order. In that view of the matter, this civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, ilany, shall stand closed. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDOY STANT REGISTRAR \ To, W JA/PSL //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad. (with records if any) 2. One CC to SRl. P VENKANNA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI NARASIMHA RAO PULUGU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies l I I HIGH COURT DATED.31t07t2025 ORDER CRP No.1368 of 2025 1 HE si4 0 2 rtB 202 ) * Y \// o() * CIVIT- REVISION PEI I'ION IS DISMISSED. 4 fl1 3 1b