Telangana) rep.by its Asst Vice President, S.R. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late S. Ch v. Satyanarayana Murthy, aged about

Sumanth Paturu S/o. Rama Rao, aged about 41 years, Occ. Managing Director, M/s. lcomm Tele Limited, R/o. Plot No.31, Phase l, Kamalapuri, Sri Nagar Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 073. Rama Rao Paturu S/o. Late Subbayya Paturu, aged about 69 years, Occ. Business, Rlo. H-No.2-2-20121A, D.D. Colony, Hyderaba( 7. 4 Smt. Kanadurga Pataru W/o. Late P. Sambasiva Rao, aged Major, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 2-2-20121A, D.D. Colony, Hyderabad - 7. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Manav Gecil Thomas Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4: Sri L. Anand rep. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: ','rtr,,W /" THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND TIIE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL NO.18 OF 2024 Mr. Manav Gecil 'hom:rs, learned counsel appearing for thd al)l)ellant Mr. 1,. Anand, lea-ne<l c:ounsel representing Mr. P Nagendra R,:cldy, learned counsel appearinli for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. JUDGMENT: ll)er l{on'ble Justice Moushumr Bhattacharya)

1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 makes a spccific submission that the respondertt. Nos.2 to 4 havc received the costs in terrns of the Trial Court's order dated 25. 1,O.','.O22 in I.A.No.250 of 2O2l in CO.S.No.6 of 20t7.

2. To clari{v matters, I.A.No.250 of 2O2l in C.O.S.No.6 of 201 7 was the restoration petition hled by the appellant herein for setting asi,le the order of dismissal of the Suit, hled by the appellant on 24.O8.2O21, i.e., the appellant's Suit was dismissed on .24.O8.2021 due to non-prosecution.

3. The aplrellant thereafter filed I.A.No.2SO of 2O2l in IA.SR.No.1801' of 2022 in C.O.S.No.6 of 2017 to restore the Suit at the stage of its dismissal for default on 24.08.2021 . I.A.No.250 of 2O2l in C.O.S.No.6 of 2Ol7 was allowed by the 2 Trial Court on 16.03.2022, subject to the appellant making payment of Rs.3,000/ - to the respondents

4. I.A.No.2SO of 2O2l in C.O.S.No.6 of 2Ol7 was dismissed by reason of the appellant's non-compliance

5. The appellant thereafter filed I.A.No.64O of 2022 rn I.A.S.R. No.18O7 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 4 days in lrling I.A.S.R. No. 18O7 of 2022. I.A.S.R.No.l8O7 of 2022 was frled to restore I.A. No.250 of 2021, as I.A.No.250 of 2O21 was dismissed on account of the appellant's failure to pay costs of Rs.3,OO0/-.

6. On 25. 1O.2022, tt,e appellant's I.A.No.640 of 2022 irt C.O.S.No.6 of 2017 was allowed by the Trial Court and I.A.No.250 of 2O2l in C.O.S.No.6 of 2Ol7 was restored.

7. The only controversy raised before us arise out of the impugrred order dated O8.O1.2024, where the Trial Court has recorded that the appellant failed to pay costs of Rs.3,O00/- and the order dated 16.03.2022 was not complied with.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant however placed a docket order of 25.1O.2022 in I.A.No.25O of 2O2l in C.O.S.No.6 of 2Ol7 which contains a specific endorsement that the costs were received, as endorsed on the docket in J I.A.No.640 of '2022. Therefore, counsel cont€nds that the records revezrl a clear contradiction in terms of the appellant making payrlent of Rs.3,OOO/- to the responde nts (the Trial Court does not spei:ifv the respondent number). 9 . We hzive heard learned counsel including learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on this lssue.

10. Learne,l counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 does not have any submissions to make or. this ground save ald exc3pt contentions on the merits of the rnatter.

11. As recorded in the order passed by us on 17.03.2025 ared 19 .O3 .2025. the respondent Nos. 1 to ll have been admitted to CIRI). Thjs is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

12. Learne,l counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 1n fact, makes a specif,rc submission t rat costs of Rs.3,OO0/- have already been received by the res;pondents.

13. In vieu of such a submission, nothing further remains to be adjudicated on the issue which is been rais;ed before us 4 ' ;rsr --

14. If the respondents have received Rs.3,OOO/-, the Trial Court's recording in paragraph 8 of the impug:ned order is clearly erroneous.

15. We are not inclined to go to the.merits of the matter. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated

08.O1.2024 and direct the Trial Court to restore C.O.S.No.6 of 2Ol7 to the list.

16. The appellant shall be at liberty to proceed with the Suit. The Trial Court shall decide the Suit along with all connected applications as expeditiously as possible arrd without granting adjournments to any of the parties before it.

17. C.O.M.C.A.No.l8 of 2024 i9 accordingly allowed. All connected applications are disposed of. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs SD/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. .The Principal special court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal oi Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad. 2 One CC to Sri Manav Gecil Thomas, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P. Nagendra Reddy Advocate [OPUCI 4 Two CD Copies \,,IIi I'SI, \" HIGH COURT DATED: 2010:3/2025 JUDGMENT COMCA.No.18 of 2024 a I .) ,r. 1HE s 14i c €.( 17 APH 2U5 t t)F.s,ra rcu ^t ( ALLOWING COMCA WITHOUT CO,STS Gof' .L