The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Kiran Palakurthi Gounsel for the Respondent: Mr. Nayakawadi Ramesh ...RespondenURespondent Decree Holder Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated O3-O5-2O24 passed in EA.No.9 of 2023 in EP.No.1 1 of 2O21 in OS.No.113 of 2O1g on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet. Between: vankudoth Ramesh, s/o Laxrnan, Age: 32 years, oc-c: Agriculture R/o. Yenugandi Thanda, H/o Botya Thanda Village of Chivvemla Mandal, Suryapet District H.No.14-2o9, Annapurna Vegetable, Market Road, suryapet rown and District. ...Revision Petitioner/Petitioner Judgment Debtor No.l D Kancfrugafla Janaiah, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age:. 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1--7-108, Near Nallala Bavi, Suryapet Town and Diskict. Decree holder 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 stay the operation of exparte decree in O.S.No.113 of 2O19 dated 3-05-2024 pending disposal of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Kiran Palakurthi Counsel for the Respondent: mr. Nayakawadi Ramesh The Court made the following: COMiION ORDER IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THEHoNoURABLEsMT.JUSTICERENUI{AYARA 1 AND 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between: Vankudoth Ramesh . . . Petitioner/ defendant/Judgment debtor Kanchugatla Janaiah . . . Respondent/ plaintiff/ decree holder COMMON ORDER: 1. Heard Mr. Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and IVIr. Navtrkarvacli Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent. Perusecl thc rccorct. Since these two Civil Revisior-r Petitions are arising from 2. an ex-parte ord,er in a srtit and the subsequent Execution Petition (EP), both the petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this comnlon order' The c.R.P.No. 1886 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the 3. condition imposecl b.r' the lcarned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet while allowing I.A.No.23 3 o{ 2021 in O.S.No.113 of 2Ol9 filed by -).. the revision petitioner. The c.R.p.No.19o0 of 2024 is fired aggrieved by the condition imposed by the learned senior civil Judge, suryapet while allowing E.A.No.9 of 2023 in E.p.No. r 1 of 2021 in O.S.No.1 13 of 2}tg. 4' The respondent/Decree horder fired suit for recoverlr e1 money and the same was decreed ex-parte on 08.12.2020. Thereafter, E.p.No.lr of 2o2r was filed and trre said E.p r,r,as allon'ed on or.o9.2022 while the petitioner rrer-t:in remainecr ex_ parte. Thereafter, the revision petitio,er/JDR firecr petitio^s under revision i.e. I.A.No.233 of 2o2r under Sectio. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the dela-1, o[ (2S li da1,s in fling petition under order IX Rure 13 of cpc to set asicre the ex_parte order dated o9-r2.2o2o passed agair-rst hi,r in o.s.No. 1r3 of 2019 and E.A-No.9 of 2022 under order XXI Rurle lo6 of cpc to set aside the ex-parte order dated 07.og.2o2? Irassed agai,st him in E.P.No.11 of 2o2r in o.s.No. r r 3 of- 2org. Both saicr petitions have been allowed by the learned Triar court u,ith a direction to the revision petitioner to crepr>sit so,yo clfl trre decreetal amount- Aggrieved by the samc, .he above ci'ir Revision Petitions have been preferred. ) T :3:

5. [n grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the learned Tria1 court ought to have imposed costs for condoning delay and for allowing E.A instead of directing to deposit half the decreetal amount. It is also submitted that r,vhile the suit for recovery of money is pending, the property of the revision petitioner was attached before judgment. [n spite of having attachment on the property of the revision petitioner, when means was available for satisflripg the decree, there \ ras no need for the learned rrial court to order deposit of 5o% of the decreetal amount for condoning the detay and setting aside the ex-parte order in E.P.

6. During arguments, the lean-red counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon judgment o[ the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Trols corporation HK Ltd. v. National ventures Pvt. Ltd.1, wherein, it is as follou,s: "21. In this backdrop, ltrc order o[ thc: I{igh Court directing a deposit o[ 75,1i, of the suit claim as a condition precedent for condoning the dela_r, and for setting aside the ex partc dccree \ ras un\ rarrzrnted. The ends of justice u,oulcl havc been mct i[ an ordcr of costs was imposed on thr: appcllernt as a condition prececlent '2024 SCC online 263 /t ::4:: for condoning the delay and for setting asidc the ex parte decree. lmposing a requirement of a deposit o[ 75"/o of the suit claim is disproportionate and rvould have to be set aside." 7 . On the basis of above citation, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there is no precedent of deposit ol 5O% of the decretal amount for setting aside the ex-parte decree or condoning delay or setting aside an order passecl in the E.P. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court has pou,er to impose an_-v kind of conclition as per its discretion for setting aside the ex-parte decree or an order passecl ex-parte in itn [i.P B. Having regard to the facts and circumstarlces presented by both the learned counsel, this Court is o[ the conside red opinion that attachment of propertv of the revlston petitioner has already ensured that means is available for satisfying the decree as and when it is required Therefore, directing the revision petitioner to deposit 5O()(, of the decreetal amount in cash in addition to the attached propertl- 1S nothing but causing hardship u-ith di sproportionate conditions imposed. i t 9 Further there is no precedent of directing a defendant to deposit 5O% of the decreetal amount for setting aside the ex-parte decree, at best, costs are imposed. In the present case too, the interest of justice would be served in case costs are imposed for condoning the delay in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte decree in the suit and setting aside the ex-parte order in the E.P.

10. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the condition imposed by the learned Trial Court i.e. deposit of 5O% of the decreetal amount while allowing I.A.No.233 of 2O2l in O.S.No.113 of 2019 and E.A.No.9 of 2A23 in E.P.No.1 1 of 2021 in O.S.No.113 of 2019, is set aside, subject to condition of the revision petitioner paying cost of Rs.2,OOO/- to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand + closed. No costs. SD/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Iill',1 To, //TRUE GOPY// OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet. 2. One CG to Mr. Kiran Palakurthi, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC 4. Two CD to Mr. Nayakawadi Ramesh, Advocate [OPUC] \P HIGH COURT ATED:I511212 zFt 0 t\ HE ST4 ,c a 3 ol JAN?[26 -t [::.:. ,.-.^,- c c 3 r=li 6and 1900 ot2024 I I 5 G =i u