In High Court · 2025

Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Alladin, S/o Late lqbal Alladin. Aged about 48 years. Occ. Business, Rl/o H no. 8-2-584, Road no. 9, Banjara Hills. Hyderabad Mr. Karim Nawaz Alladin, S/o. Late lqbal Alladin, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o H no.8-2.584, Road no. 9, Banlara Hills. Hyderabad MohdSirajuddin Khan, S/o Late Nizamuddin Khan. -Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H no. 11-5415, Red Hills, Lakdikapul. Hyderabad Mussadilal Bhagwat SwaroopJewellers Pvt Ltd, Rep by Sri Sukesh Gupta S/o Sri Prakash Chand Gupta, Aged 35 years, Occ Business R/o 1st Floor, 125, MG Road, Secunderabad M/s Shroff Apparels Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Director, Sri Sukesh Gupta S/o Sri Prakash Chand Gupta, Aged 35 years, Occ Business. R/o 1st Floor, 125, MG Road, Secunderabad

8. M/s Ghena Projects Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Director, Sri Sukesh Gupta S/o Sri Prakash Chand Gupta, Aged 35 years, Occ Business, R/o lst Floor, '125, MG Road, Secunderabad

9. M/s lnn Tract Control Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Director, Sri Sukesh Gupta Sio Sri Prakash Chand Gupta, Aged 35 years, Occ Business, R/o 1st Floor, 125, MG Road, Secunderabad

10. M/s Aashi Reattors Partnership lry, r"p byits partner Sri Sukesh Gupta S/o Sri Prakash Chand Gupta, Aged 35 years, Occ Business, R/o 1st Flobr, 125, MG Road, Secunderabad 11 M/s Aashi !lyr,r1oo! lndustries, partnership firm rep by its partner Sri Sukesh Gupta S/o SriPrakash Chand Gupta, Aged 35 yehrs, Oci Business, R/o 1st Floor, 125, MG Road, Secunderabad ....RespondenURespondents

12. Mrs. Farida Alladin, D/o Late Khan SahebDost Mohammed Khan Alladin, fged about 80 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H no. 8-2-594, Road no_ 9, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (Respondent No.2 to 12 are not necessary parties to this petition) ,...RespondenUPetitioner No.1 lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petitron 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 all further proceedings in LGop no. ,l087 oi 2016 pending on the file of the ll Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at LB Nagar pending disposal of this Revision Petrtion. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sunil B Ganu Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Sajid Shamshad The Court made the following: ORDER. redi*.---- THE HONOURABLE DRJUSTICE G'RADHA RANI CIVIL R.EVISI ONPETITION No.1523 OF 2019 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner No.2/respondent No'5 aggrieved by the order' dated 23.01.2019 in I.A.No'1790 of 2018 in LGOP No'1087 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additionat District Judge' Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar.

2.ThefactsofthecaseinbriefarethattherespondentNo.lfiled LGOP No.1087 of 2016 against the revision petitioner and other respondents. The revision petitioner was a resident of Singapore and was living there with her husband' During one of her visits to sec her aunt in Octobe r, 2017 , the revision petitioner came across a notice issued through Court in the LGOP fixing the date of hearing as I 8.09.2017. The revision petitioner immediately found the status of the case and realized that they had been set ex parte' In the said circumstances, the revision petitioner along with her aunt (respondenl No. 12) filed an application under Order IX Rute 7 seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 18'09 '2017 along with the counter to thc main LCOP petition, b'{ !!" ,trial Court dismissed the said i t i i ! : l I i c \ petition. Aggrieved by which, this revision was preferred by the petitioner herein. \ 3 Heard Smt Manjari S Ganu, Sri Sunil B Ganu, leamed counsel for the petitioner Sri S.R. Mahajir, leamed counsel for the respondents. Ieamed counsel representing

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submifted that the revision petitioner had demonstrated good and sufficient cause for their previous non_appearance and that the same was not intentional, but due to unavoidable circumstances, as the petitioner No.1 (respondent No.12) herein was a old aged woman of more than g0 years and was not in a physical state to look after the Court matters and the revision petitioner was a resident of Singapore and that they came to know about the pendency of the case only after they were set ex parte. The LGOp was at the stage of issuance of notice to the other respondents, as such, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent No.l, who was peritioner in LGOp, if the impugned order was set aside and relied upon the judgrnents oi the Hon,ble Apex Court in Robin Thapa v. Rohil Dorot. and of rhe High Court of Madras in piila I Maou.iSC 0886,,10I9 i i l I I j l I 3 Reddy and Others v. Thimmaraya Reddy and Other?' N.Ramanalhan v. Meenakshi Sundaram3 and in Delhi Development Authority v. Shanti Devi and Otherca.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No'l contended that the respondent No.1 filed Land Grabbing Case (LGC) No.3 of 2008 which was re-numbered as LGOP No'1087 of 2016' The petitioner was set ex parte long ago in LGC No'3 of 2008 before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act' After the case was transferred to the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L'B' Nagar and was re-numbered as LGOP No.1087 of ?-016, notices were again issued and once again, the petitioner was set ea Parte on 18'09'2017' She fited the present petition only to drag the case and to delay the matter' No document was filed by her to show that she was a resident of Singapore. 'Ihough the affidavit in I'A'No'1790 of 2018 was prepared in the month of October, 2017, the same was filed only on

07.03.2018 before the Court, nearly after five months without giving any reasons, as such, the Court observing the same correctly 'MnNUl.tNlogoS,t996 t 2001 Lawsuir(Mad) -587 'Manu/DE/0147rl98l 4 dismissed the said petition. Ample opportunities were given to the petitioner, but the petitioner deliberately choose to stzy ex parte. T\e petitioner had failed to demonstrate any suffrcient cause for previous non-appearance. He further contended that the petitioner was divested of her right in the property, as she sold away the property and was not interested in the outcome of the petition and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

6. Perused the record. As seen fiom the affrdavit filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.l790 of 2018 along with the respondent No.12 (petitioner No.1 therein), the revision petitioner herein stated that the petitioner No. I in the said I.A. was her aunt, she was aged 80 years and she was not in a position to look after the Court matters on her own and the petitioner was a permanent resident of Singapore and would be visiting Hyderabad only occasionally. On her visit to Hyderabad in the month of October, 20 17, she came across the notice issued by the Court stating the date of hearing of the case as

18.09.2017. She came to know that the matter was transferred to the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar from the Special Court under A.P. [-and Grabbing Act. Immediately, she had taken steps and realized that they were set ex parte on I : l i I I I i I I I 1 i t, l I I 1 Il i I i I I t 1 t l I t i I 5

18.09.2017. She further stated that the matter was at the stage of notices being issued to other respondents and no prejudice would be caused to the rights of the respondent No.l/petitioner if the ex parte order passed against them was set aside.

7. The respondent No. I filed counter opposing the said petition stating no proper and appropriate reasons were given to set aside the ex parte order passed against the petitioners therein.

8. The trial Court on hearing both the leamed counsel appearing before it, noted that the affidavit was prepared on 11.10.2017, but was filed on 07.03.2018 after five months and no proper explaration was given by the petitioner as to why they had waited till then. The trial Court also observed that no document was filed before the Court to show that petitioner No.2 was a resident of Singapore. Notices were served on the petitioners in LGC No.3 of 2008 and they were set ex parte and they were acting as per their whims and fancies and filed the petition without any bonafide reasons and dismissed the

9. On a perusal of the provision under Order [X Rule 7 of CPC, it reads as lollows: 6 u7. Procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance - Whether the Court has adjoumed the hearing of the suit e.r parte arLd the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day, fixed for his appezuance. "

10. The petitioners have filed the petition to set aside the ex parte proceedings against them, while the matter was still pending before the trial Court. As seen from the proceedings befbre the trial Court, the case was at the stage of issuing notices to the respondents in the year 2017 and by the date of filing petition in March, 2018 also, it was coming for the counter ol respondent No.3, as such, the trial was not cornmenced and if the petitioners were given an opportunity, they could have participated in the proceedings 1 1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pilla Reddy and Others v. Thimmaraya Reddy and Others (2 supra), observed that it was only for sefting aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the question of condoning the delay under Section 5 ol l,imitation Act EInSeS. For filing an application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, no limitation was prescribed and that it was open Lo rhe Court to condone her absence and sct aside the ex parte order and permit her l I i \. 4 I 7 to take part in the proceedings at any stage of the proceedings and the Court observed that: "7. One of the main reasons assigned by the court for dismissing the application is that the application should have been filed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, i.e., within thrce years from the date of the Order when they were declared ex parte. Since no application was hled within that time, the court below was ofthe view that the same is barred." "8. The said finding cannot be correct. It is a pending proceeding, and it is well-settled law that once a suit has been instituted, limitation will not run. In Delhi Development Authority v. Shanti Devi and Anr., a leamed Judge of that High Court said that 'under the Limitation Act no period is prescribed for Frling an application for sefting aside the order proceeding ex parte. Under Rule 7 of Order 9 of the Code, the defendant is allowed to file an application at or befort the next date of hearing and if he assigns good cause for his non- appearance on the previous date of hearing, the court may set aside the order proceeding ex parte.

12. Leamed counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Shanli Devi and Others (4 supra), on the above aspect

13. Thus, as seen from the above cases, if the petitioner assigns good cause lor their non-appearance, the same would be sufficient for setting aside the ex parte order against them. The afftdavit filed by the revision petitioner herein would disclose that the petitioner was a resident of Singapore and the respondent No.12 (petitioner No. 1) was an old aged woman of 80 years and was not 8 in a position to look after the Court matters on her own. As such, the same would amount to sufficient cause for their non- appearance on the earlier occasions.

14. The High Court of Madras in NlRamanathan v. Meenakshi Sundaram (3 supra), also held that: '6. It is an application filed under Order 9, Rule 7, C.p.C. which contemplates that the defendant on his appearance assigns good cause for his previous non-rpp"**"", h" rnuy, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise. be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on rhe day, fixed for his appearance. Rule is clear to the effect that on such terms of costs imposed, the petition could be allowed. since it is a suit pending thereby meaning that it is umeasonable on the part of the court to reject the plea ofsuch a petition being filed by one of the defendants or some of defendants. since it is unreasonable to obstruct the defendant from participating in fu _r".y suit proceedings, where his valuable rights -are involved, and therefore, as concluded by many upper ibrms of law that even in the event that such petitioners are not able to substantiate the reasons assigned on their part for their non- in the past, they could be punished only on such appe€rance terms as costs being saddled on them. but not denlinr their right to contest the very suit in which their valuablc rigtrs get involved."

15. When the petitioners filed an application ro set aside the ex parte order passed against them, they ought to have becn given an opportunity to defend the case. The denial of such opportunity was in violation of the principles ol natural j ustice.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora (I supra), also held that: I 9 t. Ordinarily, a litigation is based on adjudication on the merits of the contentions of the parties. Litigation should not bo terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice does require that as far as possible, adjudication be done on merits.

17. As such, this Court considers that the order passed by the leamed II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar dismissing the petition in I.A.No.l790 of 2018 in LGOP No.1087 of 2016, dated 23.01.2019 denying the petitioner right to participate in the proceedings is erroneous and as such the same is liable to be set aside.

18. In the result, this CRP is allowed, setting aside the order, dared 23.01.2019 passed by the II Additional District ludge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in I-A.No. 1790 of 20lE in LGOPNo.1087 of 2016. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. AMMAJI OEPUTY REGISTRAR t, SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist at LB Nagar 2. One CC to SRl. SUNIL B GANU, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sajid Shamshad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies (+ PB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1710412025 -^ I I ORDER CRP.No.1523 of 2019 t G l..i a ,,) (_) ,7,, + \ AU6 2025 ,i / THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWING (*^ ( (,' \;, 4 ! I !I