The High Court · 2025

G.Srinivas S/o. Dr.G.Balraj Aged about 38 Years, Occ Business R/o.Flat No.3QJ, 111_.Floor, snanti [vlansion, premises No.t-t+oileqi, Gancihinagar, Bakararn, Hyderabad-80. ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 suspend the order passed in |A.No.1576 of 2016 in OS.No.403 of 2013 on the file of ll Additiondl Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and altow the main Revision. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent None Appeared C.R.P.No.1527 of 2019 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances rstated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition aggrieved !.A.No.1573 of 2016 in OS.No.403 of 2013 dated 14.03.2019 on the file of court of the ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: Pulipati llagaraj R/ o. HNo.1-48, u, S/o.Late P.Pandaiah Aged about.43 Years, Occ.Business Nallagandla Village, Serilingampalli, Rangareddy District. ...Petitioner AND G. Sriniva s, S/o. Dr. G. Balraj Aged about. 38 Years, Occ. Business R/o. Flat No.301, lll Floor, Shanti Mansion, Premises No.1-140111 and2, Gandhinagar, Bakaram, Hyderabad-80. ..Respondent IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition ttnder 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 permit the petitioner to publish the Notices indicating the date of hearing of the Revisions before this Hon'ble Court by way of publication in the daily news paper of the area whe're the Respondent is ordinarily residing Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent None Appeared The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE NARSING RAO ITANDIKONDA CryIL RETIISION PETITIOITT NOs.1584 and 1 s27 ()F 2019 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

2. These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the common order dated

14.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.1573 of 2O16 and I.A.No.1576 of 2Ot6 in O.S.No.403 of 2013 passed by Il-Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was filed to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the petition under order IX Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff herein had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the respondent/defendant and when the matter was posted for depositing the process and the same could not be deposited, as such, the learned judge dismissed the said suit on 14.03.2019 for non-depositing of the process. It is stated that, subsequently, the petitioner calne to know about the same on 18.02.2016 and he approached his counsel and later filed an application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC with a delay of 37 days on the ground that, on said date, the mother olt$: petitioner had sustained fracture injury as ( ! 2 she fell down in the bath room. The petitioner took his mother to the hosp:.tal for treatment for about two months and he had to attend to her during that time. As such, he could not contact his counsel and deposit the process. Though notice could not be sii'rued or, the respondent, due to which an application filed by the petitione::/plaintiff, and paper publication is permitted for appeararrce. However, even after paper publication, there was no represen [ation on behalf of the respondent/defendant on 3O.0 t.20 18, and consequently, the respondent was set ex parte.

4. Ha-ving heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the certificate issued by the Orthopedic Surgeon on

05.O7.2(l 18, the learned Judge dismissed the application for condonation of delay and subsequently, he also dismissed the I.A.No. 11576 of 2016 in O.S.No.403 of 2Ol3 under Order IX Rule 4 on the ground that no valid and sustainable cause was made out for condoning the delay.

5. Br:ing aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions are file<l. In the present revision petitions, though notice was served, the respondent did not receive it and a notice was ordered by way of substitute service. In spite of the same, the respondent remained absent and he was set ex parte. ' \l . ,J,- 3

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the material placed on record, admittedly the suit was dismissed on the ground that though summons were ordered the process was not deposited by the petitioner/plaintiff. As such, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit.

7. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the dismissal order under Order IX Rule 4 for condonation of delay citing the reasons that the petitioner/plaintiff could not contact his counsel for the reason that his mother sustained fracture injuries as she fell down in the bath room and he was attending to his mother for about two months as she was under treatment and bed rest.

8. It is also contended that the certificate issued by Dr.G.Praveen, Sreya Ortho Clinic, was submitted in support of his contentions, but the learned judge came to a conclusion that mere filing of the doctor certificate could not suffice and it is stated that in fact, it is the petitioners mother who was suffering from ill health and that he should have contacted his advocate from time to time to ascertain the progress of the case, but failed to do so. \ \ But considering the reasons cited by the learned Judge appears to \ be too technical, the learned Judge ought not to have come to such a conclusion . 4

9. Hence, considering the reasons cited by the petitioner which show thrrt it was due to the medical emergency the petitioner could not contact his counsel, which appears to be suflicient cause for: not approaching his counsel and depositing the process and so edso considering the delay of 37 days. This Court do not find any reasons to disallow the applications.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the approach of the learned Judge appears to be too technical, so as to meet the ends of justice. 'fhis Court feels that the reasons cited by the petitioner for not depositing the process within time appears to be genuine.

11. H()nce, for the said reasons, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allorved, setting aside the orders passed by ll-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1573 of 2016 and I.A.No.1576 of 2016 in O.S.No.4O3 of 2013, dated 14.03.2019. In view of allowing of condonation petition, the learned Judge is directed to restore the suit back to its file on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the process immediately with 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. //TRUE COPY/' SD'. A H GOWRI SHANKAR ANT REGI N OFFICER To, 1 2 The ll r\dditional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI N. ASHOK KUMAR Advocate tOpUCI Two CD Copies AN; Ia HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ( * \J t "tilE S 11 l'tq 7fl26 * ET COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.1584 and 1i2tot ZO19 ALLOWING THE BOTH CIVTL REVISION PETTTONS 6 I \6 P 'ih