The High Court · 2025

RespondenURespondenUDefendant No. 1 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 reslrain the RespondenVPlaintiff from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession of property admeasuring 180 Sq. yards forming part of H.No. 2-6 (old H.No. 2-8) of Plot No, 11, Sy.No. 175, bounded by East. '10-0 wide road West. Property of A. Krishna Reddy. North. Property of K. Mallesh. South. Telephone Exchange situated al Aziznagat Village, Moinabad Mandal, RR District pending disposal of CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. S Raghavender Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1568 of 2Ot9 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is hled under Section I1S of C.p.C. by the revision petitioner / defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order, daLed 15.O4.2019 passed in I.A.No.292 of 2Ot8 in O.S.No.t9 of 2018 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial .Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), '"vherein the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 42 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.l herein has filed O.S.No.19 of 2018 for grant of perpetual injunction in her favour against the revision petitioner and another restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit summons were issued and as the defendants therein did not chose to contest the said suit, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court granting perpetual injunction in favour of respondent No.1 herein and against the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 herein. The revision petitioner filed a petition to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed against her and also frled the I.A.No.292 of 2Olg 2 NNR,] (rP 1668 2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone th,: delav of 42 days in hling the said set aside petition

3. Respondent No.1 hled counter stating thal th3 pctition is not maintainable as the revision pelitioner is taking fals,: pleas and filed fabricated docurnenls.

4. Considering the reasons cited and disbeliev ng the version of the revision petitioner, the learned trial Court had rli rm'issed the said application.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil R':r'ision Petition ts filed on the following grounds: (i) that during the proceedings before the M.Fl-rl. under Section 141 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 herein has confror.ted Lhe ex parte judgment and decree passed in his favour and ag,ainst the revision petitioner and responclent No.2, then she came tl knou' about the same and immediately they engaged the counsel :.nd on verification they noticed that they were set ex porte on 14.O2.2I t8 and thereafter an ex parte judgment and decree was passecl egairlst them on

11.04.2018. (ii) that no summons were received b1' the revision petitioner and admittedly the said summons were returnt d by lhe Process Server on the ground that the revision peti[ion(r and respondent ,/ 3 1\WNR,J t:rP 1668 2019 No.2 herein had refused Lo receive the summons and the same was denied by her. (iii) that the delay in filing thc application to set aside the ex parfe judgment and decree was passcd against them and as they did not receive the summons and that thel' came to kn or."' about the said decree only during the proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer (iv) that the learned trial Court did not consider the said reasons and dismissed the pcLition stating that the revision petitioner had not stated an!' reasons u'tralsocver for not hling the set aside petition in lime, nor she has not shou'tl any sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 42 days and thc learned trial Court held that although the Hon'ble Apex Court in cate na of judgments held that a petition to condone the delav has to be dealt *'ith in a liberal manner, but the learned trial Court having rrot satisfied with the cause mentioned in the af[rdavit did not choose to condone the delay'

6. Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy lcarned colrnsel lor the reviston petitioner. None appeared for respondent No 1- No notice was served on respondent No 2 as the cause title itself shorvs that he is not a necessary parry in the present Civil Revision Petilion' 4 \\lt,l rrP 1665 2019

7. Leamed counsel for the revision pe[itioner rirs reiterzrtcd thc grounds mentioned in the Civil Revision Petitior. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the revision pelitioner is that the learned trial Court did not consider the reai()ns cited ltv thc revision petitioner that no notice was served on her and she came to know about I he same at later point of time

8. Having perused the contents of the afhdavi: and the rcasons statcd bv thc revision petitioner that she had no knorvlerlge about thc suit and sllmmons u,as not received by her. Admittcdlv, no summons ',vzr s served on the defendants as the rel)c rt oI the Process Server shou,s that they have refused to receive t}-r': suntmons rvhicl-t the revision petitioncr was denied. It is also statc,l that the revision petitioner came to know about passing of thie ex p(Lrte judgment and decree on 11.06.2018 when she, along with defenrleLnt No.2, $,ent to the olfice of the Mandal Revenue Officer ald reqtre.sterl to rcdeliver the possession of their open land admeasuring 55 square 1,ards in Plot No.11 situated in Sy.No.175 of Aziz Nagar Villagie, Moinabad Manclal, Ranga Reddy District and on the said date the Mandal Rer,'enue Oflicer had confronted the copy of the ex parte judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.19 of 2018 Immediatcly, the revision petitioner, along u.ith defendant No.2 apJrroachccl the counscl bv name Sri Chorvdary Yadava Reddy an,'l u'hr:n hc verified .,, I 5 NNR,J (rP_l568 2019 the record, he came to knorv that the suit bundle has been sent to the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Parigi for preparation of dccree and after preparation of the decree the same \ /as returned to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella and later on lhcy came to kno"v that they were set ex parte and an ex parte judgment and decree was passed against them. Immediately the revision petitioner filed the applications to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed against them in O.S.No.19 ol 2018 and to condone the delay of 42 days in filing the said set aside petition. g. Considering the reasons cited in the af[rdavit liled in support of the petition and having heard the learned counsel for thc revision petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the delal' w'hich is caused is only 42 days and the reason cited is that no summons lvere served on the revision petitioner though the record rcveals that the defendants were refused to receive thc said summons but the same was denied by the revision petitioner. Therefore, it is a fit case to condone the delay.of 42 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte judgmeot and decree, dated 1 l-O4.2018 passcd in O S'No 19 of 2018 lO. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allor'"'ed and conscquently, 1.A.No.292 ol2Ol8 in O.S.No 19 of 2018 is alloued by condoning the delay ol 42 da,u-s in filing the petition to set aside the -:--'i 6 NNI(,I crP 1563 20',19 ex porte judgme nr and decrec, dated 11.04.2018 pas:;ed in O.S.No. I9 ol 2018. Houever, as it is reported that the applirarion to set aside the ex pdrte iu.dgrr.en t and decree, dated 1 1.0.r.12O 18 passed in O.S.No. 19 of 20 18 is still pending, the learnecl trial (lourt is directed to proceed u'ith the disposal of the said I.A. on it; own merits and pass orders in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, iI any, pending shall stand closed There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- A JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The Junior Crvil J ud ge-cum-J ud icial Magistrate of First (llass At Chevella Ranga Reddy District. (with records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. S.Raghavender Reddy, Advocate [OPJt3] 3. Two CD Copies M HIGH COURT DATED 25t09t2025 ORDER CRP.No.'1668 of 2019 :i t.: \ ()\ 17 Nt\j ?ui l.r CIVII- REVISIoN PEI'II'ION IS AI,I-OWED- ,l Lb6

RespondenURespondenUDefendant No. 1 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 reslrain the RespondenVPlaintiff from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession of property admeasuring 180 Sq. yards forming part of H.No. 2-6 (old H.No. 2-8) of Plot No, 11, Sy.No. 175, bounded by East. '10-0 wide road West. Property of A. Krishna Reddy. North. Property of K. Mallesh. South. Telephone Exchange situated al Aziznagat Village, Moinabad Mandal, RR District pending disposal of CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. S Raghavender Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1568 of 2Ot9 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is hled under Section I1S of C.p.C. by the revision petitioner / defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order, daLed 15.O4.2019 passed in I.A.No.292 of 2Ot8 in O.S.No.t9 of 2018 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial .Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), '"vherein the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 42 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.l herein has filed O.S.No.19 of 2018 for grant of perpetual injunction in her favour against the revision petitioner and another restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit summons were issued and as the defendants therein did not chose to contest the said suit, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court granting perpetual injunction in favour of respondent No.1 herein and against the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 herein. The revision petitioner filed a petition to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed against her and also frled the I.A.No.292 of 2Olg 2 NNR,] (rP 1668 2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone th,: delav of 42 days in hling the said set aside petition

3. Respondent No.1 hled counter stating thal th3 pctition is not maintainable as the revision pelitioner is taking fals,: pleas and filed fabricated docurnenls.

4. Considering the reasons cited and disbeliev ng the version of the revision petitioner, the learned trial Court had rli rm'issed the said application.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil R':r'ision Petition ts filed on the following grounds: (i) that during the proceedings before the M.Fl-rl. under Section 141 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 herein has confror.ted Lhe ex parte judgment and decree passed in his favour and ag,ainst the revision petitioner and responclent No.2, then she came tl knou' about the same and immediately they engaged the counsel :.nd on verification they noticed that they were set ex porte on 14.O2.2I t8 and thereafter an ex parte judgment and decree was passecl egairlst them on

11.04.2018. (ii) that no summons were received b1' the revision petitioner and admittedly the said summons were returnt d by lhe Process Server on the ground that the revision peti[ion(r and respondent ,/ 3 1\WNR,J t:rP 1668 2019 No.2 herein had refused Lo receive the summons and the same was denied by her. (iii) that the delay in filing thc application to set aside the ex parfe judgment and decree was passcd against them and as they did not receive the summons and that thel' came to kn or."' about the said decree only during the proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer (iv) that the learned trial Court did not consider the said reasons and dismissed the pcLition stating that the revision petitioner had not stated an!' reasons u'tralsocver for not hling the set aside petition in lime, nor she has not shou'tl any sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 42 days and thc learned trial Court held that although the Hon'ble Apex Court in cate na of judgments held that a petition to condone the delav has to be dealt *'ith in a liberal manner, but the learned trial Court having rrot satisfied with the cause mentioned in the af[rdavit did not choose to condone the delay'

6. Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy lcarned colrnsel lor the reviston petitioner. None appeared for respondent No 1- No notice was served on respondent No 2 as the cause title itself shorvs that he is not a necessary parry in the present Civil Revision Petilion' 4 \\lt,l rrP 1665 2019

7. Leamed counsel for the revision pe[itioner rirs reiterzrtcd thc grounds mentioned in the Civil Revision Petitior. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the revision pelitioner is that the learned trial Court did not consider the reai()ns cited ltv thc revision petitioner that no notice was served on her and she came to know about I he same at later point of time

8. Having perused the contents of the afhdavi: and the rcasons statcd bv thc revision petitioner that she had no knorvlerlge about thc suit and sllmmons u,as not received by her. Admittcdlv, no summons ',vzr s served on the defendants as the rel)c rt oI the Process Server shou,s that they have refused to receive t}-r': suntmons rvhicl-t the revision petitioncr was denied. It is also statc,l that the revision petitioner came to know about passing of thie ex p(Lrte judgment and decree on 11.06.2018 when she, along with defenrleLnt No.2, $,ent to the olfice of the Mandal Revenue Officer ald reqtre.sterl to rcdeliver the possession of their open land admeasuring 55 square 1,ards in Plot No.11 situated in Sy.No.175 of Aziz Nagar Villagie, Moinabad Manclal, Ranga Reddy District and on the said date the Mandal Rer,'enue Oflicer had confronted the copy of the ex parte judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.19 of 2018 Immediatcly, the revision petitioner, along u.ith defendant No.2 apJrroachccl the counscl bv name Sri Chorvdary Yadava Reddy an,'l u'hr:n hc verified .,, I 5 NNR,J (rP_l568 2019 the record, he came to knorv that the suit bundle has been sent to the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Parigi for preparation of dccree and after preparation of the decree the same \ /as returned to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella and later on lhcy came to kno"v that they were set ex parte and an ex parte judgment and decree was passed against them. Immediately the revision petitioner filed the applications to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed against them in O.S.No.19 ol 2018 and to condone the delay of 42 days in filing the said set aside petition. g. Considering the reasons cited in the af[rdavit liled in support of the petition and having heard the learned counsel for thc revision petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the delal' w'hich is caused is only 42 days and the reason cited is that no summons lvere served on the revision petitioner though the record rcveals that the defendants were refused to receive thc said summons but the same was denied by the revision petitioner. Therefore, it is a fit case to condone the delay.of 42 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte judgmeot and decree, dated 1 l-O4.2018 passcd in O S'No 19 of 2018 lO. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allor'"'ed and conscquently, 1.A.No.292 ol2Ol8 in O.S.No 19 of 2018 is alloued by condoning the delay ol 42 da,u-s in filing the petition to set aside the -:--'i 6 NNI(,I crP 1563 20',19 ex porte judgme nr and decrec, dated 11.04.2018 pas:;ed in O.S.No. I9 ol 2018. Houever, as it is reported that the applirarion to set aside the ex pdrte iu.dgrr.en t and decree, dated 1 1.0.r.12O 18 passed in O.S.No. 19 of 20 18 is still pending, the learnecl trial (lourt is directed to proceed u'ith the disposal of the said I.A. on it; own merits and pass orders in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, iI any, pending shall stand closed There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- A JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The Junior Crvil J ud ge-cum-J ud icial Magistrate of First (llass At Chevella Ranga Reddy District. (with records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. S.Raghavender Reddy, Advocate [OPJt3] 3. Two CD Copies M HIGH COURT DATED 25t09t2025 ORDER CRP.No.'1668 of 2019 :i t.: \ ()\ 17 Nt\j ?ui l.r CIVII- REVISIoN PEI'II'ION IS AI,I-OWED- ,l Lb6