The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Petitioners/Defendant No.3 & 4 Subhash Kedia, S/o. Giridhar Lal, aged about 65 years, R/o.Near Seena Bakery, Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad. Boorla Sheshadri, S/o. Nagaiah, aged about 70 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Opp. Bharat Gas Agencies, Medak Town and District. Upparpally Ramesh Goud, S/o. Occ. Business, R/o. '1-92, Boguda Mandal, Medak District Malla Goud, aged Bupathinagar Village, about 57 years, Haveli Ghanpur

6. Kondan Surender Goud, S/o. Nara Goud, aged about 58 years, occ. Business, Rlo. 1-10-71114, Medak Town and District

7. Vyasabut Srinivas, S/o. Narsing Rao, aged about 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rlo. 1-9-12l4lCl2lc, Vasavinagar, Medak Town and District (Respondent no.3 to 7 are not necessary parties in the CRP) ...Respondents/ Respondents/Defendant No.1,2,5,6 & 7 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be plehsed to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 102 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge. at Medak pending disposal of the main CRP and pass. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 extend the interim orders of "Granting Stay" dated 28-8-2023 passed in l.A. No. 01 ol 2023 tn C.R.P. No. 1827 ot 2023 until further orders and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. N Vinesh Raj Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CrVIL REVISION PETITION No.1827 of 2023 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No.420 of 2022 in I.A.No.788 of 2Ol4 in O.S.No.lO2 of 2014, dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak.

2.1. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the petitioners in I.A.No.42O of 2022, which is filed under order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC to set aside the order passed on 27.O7.2021 in I.A.No.788 of 2014.

2.2. Petitioner herein is the respondent No.1 1n I.A.No.420 of 2022.

3. Petitioner No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) has sworn the affrdavit in I.A.No.42O of 2022 on his behalf and on behalf of petitioner No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) and stated that respondent No.1 (petitioner herein) has filed \ suiAfor Perpetual Injunction against him and others and [?' 2 salrle was posted on 27.O7.2021 for filing written statement and counter in I.A.No.788 of 2014 and they were unable to meet their counsel to give instnr.ction to file counter, as petitioner No.1 was attacked with COVID-19. Due to non-filing of counter, thel' were set ex-parte.

4. Petitionc'r-respondent No. t has liled his counter contending that the respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and they have not shown sufficient reasons to set aside ttre orders passed against them and the time for filing written statement and I counter is a-lready over and they have colluded with defendant No.2 (Sri B. Sheshadri) and prayed to dismiss the same.

5. Learned trial Court, after going throu$h the material, has a,llowed the apphcation vide order dated

21.03.2023, which is impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition. I I I I

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and has not assigned arry reasons while allowing the application of respondent Nos. 1 and 2-petitioners. Learned tria,l Court ought to have dismissed the petition on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 and 2-petitioners have not produced any documentar;r 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 1S served but none appeared.

8. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals 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 exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or 4 \_- -- exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: 'l K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC Online SC 985).

9. On pcmsa,l of materia-l filed by the petitioner herein goes to show that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No. 1021 of 2Ol4 for perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos.l and 2 at the initial point of time. Thereafter, defendant Nos.3 to 7 were impleaded as per the orders ol learned trial Court on 01.03.2019. The reasons mentioned by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2- petitioners in the affidavit in I.A.No.42O of 2O22 are that they are urlaware of the suit filed by the petitioner herein and they <:a:ne to know of the same recently and that defendant No.3 (respondent No.1 herein) suffered COVID- 19 and could not contact his counsel and file written statement ;-rnd counter.

10. Respondents No. 1 and 2-petitioners were set ex parte on 27.07.2021 for non frling of the counter in I.A.No.788 of 2014. )

11. Learned trial Court in its order dated 21.03.2023, observed in paragraph No.3 as under: " Firstly, this suit utas initiallg filed against D1 & D2 onlg. Later it 2019 D3 to D7 utere impleaded through an IA wltich utas allowed on 01.O3.2019. Later for uoious reasons including COWD-L9 pandemic restictions summor?s could not be serued on D3 & D4 till 2021. It is only ln February 2O21, the summons uLere serued but as per record before nert date of heaing for their appeardnce Couid-l9 second u.taue restrictions commenced and later suddenly petitioners u)ere set exparte on 27.O7.2O21 due to their absence and non-representation. Petitioners to shoru their bonafides readily filed ttrcir utitten statement in the suit along tuith the petition. TLe same 'ensures that there will be no more delag on tleir behalf. Issues are framed on 23.1O.2O21 but chief examination of PW1 utas filed on 18.07.2022 uhich impresses considercLble delag euen on part of plaintiff in the suit proceedings. Nou the ccse is pending .for cross examination of PWL. Further sirnilar petition filed bg petitioners in main suit uide 1.A.No.419 of 2O22 is alloued todag." L2. Summons were served on the respondents No. I and 2-petitioners-respondent-defendants No.3 ar,.d 4 only in the month of February 2O2l , by the next date of hearing I of their appearance COVID-19 restrictions commenced, and it is the contention of the respondent No.1-petitioner No. 1 in his affidavit that he suffered with COVID-l9, which reason is bona-fide and the learned trial Court has taken thc same into consideration. o

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

14. In vie'w of the decision of the Supreme Court stated supra, and for the reasons mentioned aborne, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned tria,l Court, Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the sarne is liable to be dismissed.

15. Accortlingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interirn orders il any stanC vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 iiTRUE COPYi/ S,ECTION OFFICER To, 1 .) 4 The Senior Civil Judge, at Medak One CC to Sri. N Vinesh Raj, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies /k. V YIR/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ORDER CRP.No.1827 of 2023 ii-',E SiA t) a_) ':a 2 i ilolJ 2t[5 t _),. _.i DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION. \ \\ ?0