The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed an support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedrngs in OS No. 102 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Medak pending disposal of the main CRP and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. N VINESH RAJ Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CI\rIL REVISION PETITION No.1825 of 2023 I ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No.419 of 2022 in O.S.No.102 of 2014, dated

21.03.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civii Judge, Medak.

2.1. Respondents No. I and 2 herein are the petitioners in I.A.No.419 of 2022, which is hled under order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC to set aside the order passed on 27 .O7 .2021 in O.S.No.102 of 2014.

2.2. Petitioner herein is the respondent No.1 in I.A.No.419 of 2022.

3. Petitioner No. 1 (respondent No.1 herein) has sworn the affidavit in I.A.No.4l9 of 2022 on his behalf and on behalf of petitioner No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) and stated'6lrat respondent No. 1 (petitioner herein) has fiied suit for Perpetual Injunction against him and others and 2 safiIe wi1s posted on 27.O7.2021 for hling written statement in O.S.No.lO2 of 2OL4 and they rvere unable to meet their counsel to give instruction to file written statement, as petitioner No.1 was attackecl with COVID-

19. Due tc non-{lling of written statement, they were set ex-parte.

4. Petitioner-respondent No.1 has hled his counter contending that the respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners have not approached the Court with clear.r hands ald suppressed the material facts and they have not shown sufficient reasons to set aside the orders passed against them ald the time for fi1ing written statement is already over and ttrey have colluded with defendant No.2(Sri B. Sheshadr:i) and prayed to dismiss the same.

5. Lea:'ned trial Court, after going through the material, has a-llowed the application vide order dated

21.03.2023, which is impugned 111 the present Civil Revision Petition. .t 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and has not assigned arry reasons white allowing the application of resPondent Nos' 1 and 2-Petitioners' Learned trial Court ought to have dismissed the petition on the ground that respondent Nos'1 and 2-petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their contention as stated in paragraph No'2 of their petition i.e., COVID- 19'

7. Notice to respondents No'1 and 2-petitioners is served but none aPPeared.

8. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribuna-ls under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to e:<ercise jurisdiction which it does have, or ,-'' 4 exercising its jurisdiction in K.Va_larmathi and Others Vs. Online SC 985). a perverse manner (See: Kumaresan _ 2O2S SCC

9. On perusal of material fi1ed by the petitioner herein goes to show that the petitioner has firecr a suit in O.S.No.702 of 2Ol4 for perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 arrd 2 at the initial point of time. Thereafter, defendant Nos.3 to Z were impleaded as per the orders of learned tria_l Court on 01.03.2019. The reasons mentioned by the respondent Nos.1 and 2_ petitioners in the afhdavit in I.A.No.4l9 of 2022 are that they are unawa-re of the suit filed by the petitioner herein and they carne to know of the same recentll, and that defendant No.3 (respondent No.1 herein) suffered COVID-19 aLd could not contact his counsel and frle written statefiIent.

10. Respondr:nts No. 1 and 2-petitioners were set ex parle 0n 27.07.2021 for non filing of the written staternent m O.S.No'1O2 of 2014' ------7 l I I I

11. Learned trial Court in its order dated 21'03'2023' observed in ParagraPh No.3 as under: "Firstly, fhis suit utas initiatly filed. again2t D1 & D2 onlg ' fater ii zolg D3 to D7 utere impleaded tlvough an IA u.thich tpas allouted on 01-03.2019' Later for uaious reasons including COVID- 1 9 pandemic restictions summorrc could, not be serued on D3 & D4 till 2021' It is onlg in February 2021, the summons utere sented but as pei record before next date of heoing for their appeorance 'Couid-19 seiond taaue restictions commen'ed and later suddenlg petitioners were set exparte on 27'07'2.O21 due to their absence and non-representation' Petitioners to show their bonafides readily filed their witten statement in the suit along tttith the petition. The same ensures that ttere uill be no more delay on their beholf. Issues are framed on 23.10.2O21 but chief examination of PW1 utas -fited on 18.07.2022 uhich impresses considerable delag euen on part of plaintiff in the suit proceedings. Now the case is pending for cross examination of PWl-"

12. Summons were served on the respondents No.1 and 2-petitioners-respondent-defendants No.3 and 4 only in the month of February 2021, by the next date of hearing of their appearance COVID-19 restrictions commenced, and it is the contention of the respondent No. 1_petitioner No.l in his a_ffidavit that he suffered with COVID-l9, which reason is bonalide and the learned trial Court has taken the same into consideration. 6

13. The observation of the learned trial Court is in proper perspective and the interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited.

14. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court stated supra, and for the reasons mentioned abovg, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court, Civil Revision petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There sha-lI be no order as to costs. Interim orders if aly stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed. SD/.K AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Senior Civil Judge' at Medak' 2. One CC to SRl tl vfr'lisH RAJ Advocate [oPUCl | 3. Two CD CoPies 4b. TPI(ABK HIGH COURI DATED: 1Tt1O]IO2S -tt 21, IiO'JM * ORDER CRP.No.1B2S ot 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED \ 1) U