The High Court · 2025

7. Smt. A. Vijaya Lakshmi. Wo. Surender, Aged about 34 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. Sardarnagar Village, Maheshwaram Mandal. Ranga Reddy District.

8. Smt. Yettamoni Shankaramma, W/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Drstrict. 9. Smt. B. Lakshmamma, W/o. Srisallam Aged about 41 years Occ Housewife, Rio. Buchgudem Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Smt. Bhudevi, Wo. Ramesh, Aged about4l years, Occ Housewife, R/0. Rachulur Village, Kandukur [Vlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

1.1. Smt. K. Satyavathi, W/o. AnJaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. Devunipadkal Village, Thalakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....:

12.Alle Ravinder, S/o Late Danaiah, Aged about 51 years. Occ Student, R/o [t/aheshwarm Village and lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District ...Respo nder.rts/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circunlstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court ma, be pleased to stay all the further F roceedings in O.S.No 121 of 2014 on the 'rle of the Hon'ble V Addltional District .ludge and Sessions judge, Ranga Redcv D strict at L. B. Nagar pending th€, above Revision Pelition in the above st€ ted facts and circumstances of thr: r;ase. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JELLA SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 9 & 10: SRI A RAVINDER REDDY REPRESE:NTING SRI BOM['IINENI VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Res,pondent Nos.5 to 7 and 11: SRI KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI Counsel for the Res pondent No.12: Ms. SARAMPALLY MRUDULI\ The Court made the following: ORDER -!-- .tH E HONOTIRAI}t,F], SM'T. .IUSTICE RI.]NU KA YARA CIVIL RII,VISION PIITI'I'I()N No.l985 of 2021 oRD[-Ir: Hcard Sri .lella Srikanth, lcarned counsel lbr thc revision netitioncr. Sri A. Ravinder Redd1 , learncd Senior Cour-rsel representing Sri Bornmincni Vivckananda, learned cotrnsel fbr respondent Nos. l, 2, 9 and 10, Sri Kr:ishna Kishorc Kovvuri, leamed counsel lbr respondent Nos.5 to 7 and I l and Ms. Saranrpally Mrudula. lcarned counsel for rcspondent No. l?. Perused the cntirc rccorcl.

2. -fhis Civit Rer.ision Petition is tiled aggrieved by the order passcd in I.A.No.8l8 ol20l-i in O.S.No. l2l ol-20 l4 dated 13.06.2024 by the learned V Additional District Judge, I{anga Redd1, District at L.B.Nagar, ('trial Courl'), r.r'hclein an application fllcd under Scction 5 of the I-imitation Act. 1963, to condonc delay ol'78 dals in filing application under Order lX Rule l3 ol C.P.C. in O.S.No. I 2l ol l0l4 has been disrnissed.

3. The background facts are that respondent Nos.l and 2 have t'iled a suit for partition and separate possession with a prayer to pass preliminary decree allotting I /9'l' share to thcrn ar-rd pass llnal decree with respect to the s[it schedule property consisting ol' agricultural land in Sy.No.342 to an I extent of Ac.l-36 guntas, Sy.No.343 to an extent of Ac.1-09 guntas, RY..I cRP le85 2024 Sy.r..vo.344 to an cxtent olAc.0-25 guntas, Sy.No.345 tc),tn ()xtent o1'Ac.O- 16 guntas, S1'.No.349 to an extent ot' Ac.0-16 guntas. Sy.No.350 to an extent of Ac.0- L' guntas. Sy.No.i74 to an extent ol' i\c.0-34 guntas and Sy.No.375 to xn txtent of Ac.0-05 qLrntas, total adntcasr.rring Ac.5-08 guntas situated irt Maheshrvaranr Villagc ancl Mandl,l. Ranga I{eddy Distlict. -l'hc r'rricl suit has bccu distnisscd lirr dclirult on ,l().[,8.]01(r. ['rior to dismissal ol'the suit, the rcvision petitioncr lrercin rvrs sel ar purte L)y docket order date,l 10.07.2014 bv servirrg sumnrorls bl ivay o['neu,spapcr publication. After- the suit was dismissed tbr dclirult. the suil was restored vide orders in t.A.No.7l4 of 20 l6 by condoning de'la1 ol'')93 days in filing the petition under ( trder lX Rule 4 ol- the ('.P.('. Thcrc:fier, the suit rvas decreed ex pcu'te. ,.\ggrieved by the said a.\ pdrte decre.'. thc I.A. under revision was fi lcd to condone delay ol' 78 days alons \\ ith petition to set aside the ex porte order. Thc said I.A.No.U l8 ol l02i has bt:cr.t dismissed leading to filing ol the present Civil Revision Pctit.ion.

4. Respondcrrt |los. l, 2, 9 and l0 frlcd their counlr.'r opposing the present revision pl:ading that thc trial (lourt has rightll, cllsrnissed the I.A under revision ilnd there are no grounds fbr interf'erence. 2 RY.J CRP 1985 202,1

5. Rcsporrdcnt No. I2 filed his counter supporling the case ot' the revision petitioner and praycd to sct aside the intpugned order and allorv the preserrt revision

6. Learncd counsel for thc levision pctitioner relied upon the judgnrent in the case o{'the Hon'ble Suprcrne Court of India in G.P.Srivastava v. R.K.Raizadar, wherein it is held as under: -'7. []ndcr Ordcr 9. Rule l.l. (l.l).C'. an ex parle dccrcc passed against a de{endant can l.rc sct asidc upon satistaction olthc Court that either thc sunllnons \vcrc not dulr scrr c-<l upon thc dc'f'cndant or hc *'as preventcd h1 an1 'suff-icient causc' Iiorn appearing uhen the suit rvas callcd on fbr hearing. Urrlcss 'sulflcient clr.rsc' is shoun firr nonappcarallce of the delcrrtlaut irr the casc on the date ol'hearing. the Court has l)o po\\cr to sr-t asidc an e\ partc dccrcc.'fhe s'ords "u,as prevented by any sullicicnI causc tiorn appcaring" nrust be liberally construed to onablc thc Courl to do complctc iustice betrveen the parties particularlv s,hen uo ncgligcncc or inaction is irnputablc to erring party. Su[ficicnt cause lbr thc purposc ol'Ordcr 9 Ilule l3 has to be cortstrucd as clastic cx;rrcssion tbr shich no hard and I'ast guidelincs can bc prcscribcd. Ihc Courts havc r.r'idc discretion in deciding thc suflicient causc kccping in vieu' thc peculiar lacts and circulnstanccs olcach casc. 'l'lrc 'sullicicnt causc' lirr non-appearance ref'ers to the' date on u,h ich thc ahsence u'as nradc a ground for procceding ex-parte and cannot bc strctchetl to rel1, upon other circumstances anterior in tintc. Il'sullicic'nt cause' is rnadc out lor non- appearancc ol'the def'endar)l. ()ll the date tked lirr hearing r.vhen ex partc proceedings initiated against hirn. he cannot be penalised lor his previous ncgligcnce w'hich had bccn overlookcd and thereby condoncd carlior. In a casc whcre defendant approaohcs thc Court irnmedialcly and u,ithin thc statutor)' tirnc specilied. the discretion is normally cxcrcised in his lhvour. provided thc abscnce rvas nol. mala fide or intcntional. For thr: absence ofa paft) in thc case the othcr side can be courpcr.rsated b1, adequate costs and the lis dccided on merits." ' (zoodJ:-lcc sa 3 RY.J cRP t9n5 2024

7. Leamed courtsel for the revision petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the liupreme Court in Moolthand v. (iangasahai2, rvherein the suit was disnrssed tbr default owing to the failure ol tht: plaintitl and the defi:ndant to appear and on an applicatiorr by the plaintitl' fbr restoration, notice of the application was served on the dc t'endant rvho. however, did not e.ppear. The application fbr restoration rvas allowed and a datc rvas fixed fbr the hearing of which the defendant had no toticc and the case was decided in favour of the plaintiff on the dirte so flxccl and thereafter, the def:ndant applied for restoration of'thc casc on thc ground that he had no knowledge whatever of the date ot'hearing. On rcvision against the disrnissal of this application for restoration. it r.va:; held that the defendant is entitled both in equity and as of right to notice of the date fixed for hearing the case after its restoration tiy the plaintiff.

8. \\lhile disnrissing the I.A. unclcr rr'vision, the trial ( or:rt has hclcl as fbllorvs: "The rnain corrlention of petitioncr/D2 is that hc has no1 rcccivctl sLulrnons in the suit procccdings. Ilut as per n()tc on 01.0.1.2014 in thc suit docket summons ol D.2 scrvcd on his son. I:r'cl though thc court order lbr papcr publication. Later set I).1 exrartc on 10.07.2014. I hcreafter other defendants also rcnrainccl er.parte. Alier taking plaintifl side evidence and on hearing this court pronounccd iudgrnent on 21.()8.2023. Therelore thc grouncl *hich is rnentioncd in the aflldavil is absolutely false. ' AIR 19:3 ALL.s22 4 RY.J cRP 1985 2024 'l hough the petitioncr reccived surnrnons through his son, hc gavc f'alse statenrent dclibcratcll'. Inspite ol rcceiving summons the petiti()ncr lailcd to appear befbre thc court cven befbre pronouncernent ofl.iudgnrent nearll,alier 91,cars altcr rcceipt of'sunrmons. lt is not his casc thal though he reccivcrl suutnlol)s lbr somc r,alid rcasons hc could not appear belbre thc court. Pctitioncr filed this pelition by supptcssing rcal lacts o1' senice ol suntntons ort hirn. 'l hus the cxplanation si\cn bY the pctitioncr is not satislacton to condonc tlle delay ol'78 dals. I did not tlnd anr rncrits in this petition. hence thc sarne is liable to bc disntisscd."

9. The abovc order shorvs that thc trial Court has made two contradictory findings. Iiirstlr,. the orcler statcs that thc revisiou petitioner was served with surnmons thlouqh his son and thercafter, the revision petitioner was set e,y parte b1, sen,ing sunrmons through newspaper publication

10. A perusal ol' the dockct order dated 01.04.1014 shorvs that no surnlllons were seryed on thc rcvision pctitioner hcrein/de tcndant No.2, but publication was ordered. The said docket order is extractcd and produced below: "D3,5.6,7,8,9 callr;d abscnt no rcl)rescntation sct expan) publication to Dl.2,l[.-l in rnr-gha .jlothi ncrvspapcr issucs proccss to D[0 on correct atldrcss. C]all on 06.06.201-1." ISSUC

11. There is factual error on thc part of the trial Couft about service of suffrmons on the revision petitioner hcrein, r,uherr there is no such service. ln the absence of service of sumntons on the son of the revision petitioner, the contention ol the revision petitioner that he was not selved with i 5 RY,.I ('RP r985 2024 sumrrons in suit p roceedings has to be belicved to be correct. On the basis of such a tbctual crror that summons were sc-n,ed on the s,tn ol'the revision petitioncr, the trial Court proceeded to bclieve that the rcvision petitioner gavc talse statern('nt deliberately and it is held that the r,:r'i:iotr petirioner failed to appear bc firre the Court in spite ol service of srnttutt,ns on thc son of thc revisiorr petitioner and that fbr nine years there \\'rs nl appearance 'fhe trial Court has, held that explanation given is not sat is l'act .)r1,'. hciuever, the d<rcket ordcr dated 01.04.2014 clearly shows that lhcre \\as no sen ice of summons on the rcvision petitioner and therctbrc. thc ncu,spapcr publication rvas ordcred. In the circumstances, the version of thc rerision petitioner aboul not having knowledge about the suit proct'edings has to be believed. Lack of knorvledge about suit proceedings can be sufllcient causc lor condonine, delay of78 days.

12. Further. no s urnrnons or notice was served on thc revision pctitioner when the suit was restored in the year 2023. As per Ordcr IX Rule 9 (2) ot' Cl.P.('.. notice has to be issued to the opposite partv bclire restolation of' the suit which is dismissed for default. l'[-rere is no nced to servc notice when suit is disr rrissc-d for non-prosecution alicr irppcarrurcc ol 1[re defendants. In spit,: of service of sumlnons, notice need to be ;en,ed in the subsccluer-rt proceecings. In the instant case, therc was no appeararrcc of any of the def'cnclar rts as ma.iority of tl-rem w'ere served thr(rLlgrt nc\\'sprper 6 RY..I cRP 1985 202.1 publication. Upon restoring the suit, thcre is ar-r obligation on the paft of respondenl Nos.l and 2 to scrve noticc on defendants again as right of delbndants to cl'oss-cxalnine thc plaintills' witncsses renrains intact irrespective ol- being seI e\ l)arte. 'l'he delendants, u,ho are set ex put'tc continue to havc the right to cross-e\al.ninc plaintill.s' witnesses and right to prescnt argunents on the evidence addr"rced by the plaintif-fs

13. In the instant case, no such notice was served on the deftndallts atter the suit was restored on 09.03.2013. By tailurc to serve notice atter restoration of the suit, the right to cross-exanlinc tlrc plaintitli' witncsses by the revision petitioner has bec'n deprived likcrvisc the right to argue to defcnd the suit trled by the plaintifl'.s/rcsponcle nt Nos.l and I has been deprivcd. I'hc [{on'blc Suprcr.t.tc Court ol'India in Kanchhu r'. I)rak:rsh Chandr. held as under: ''19. ...Once the pleadings arc complcte but thc l)ciindant is sct ex parte. and such order has attainctl linalitl,, the Defcndant's rights su lf'er a curtaihncnt. lle cannot producc evidence in det'cncc and hence statements, which are in thc nature ()l'aclual asse(ions. cannot be proved by leading evidcnce. Generallv spcaking. the lirlited right that thc Defendant, sct ex parte. rvould havc is confincd to cross- examining the Plaintiff's rvitnesscs. Thc ellirrt has to be directed towards demonstrating that thol are not spcaking thc truth and. thereby, demolish the case ol the Plaintil-1. Essentiallv. therclbrc. in such a case the Defendant has to convince thc court that thc case put up by the Plaintiff is so falsc that thc court ought not to acccpt it..." I MAN U/SClo536/202s 1 I I i I t I I RY,J cRI' t e85 l0r.+ -

14. As per tl're atrovc judgment, the del'endattts itr a sttit, rvho havc' bcen sel oi parte have 'ight to cross-examine and argue the tnalter

15. There is laP5s In thc procedure of serving noticc altcr restoration of suit on 09.03.1o2.i, thc said lapse lead to deprivation of light rfthe revision petitioner to clefi'ncl his case. The delay ol 78 days lras to be' cottsidcred liom thc datc ol rlc'crcr' alier restoration ol'suit, but not liorn the original datc on rvhich tht revision petitioner was set ex purte on the basis of the nc\vspaper publicr tion prior to dismissal of the suit on l9.Oli.l 0 I 6 l(r. In view ol t re lirregoing discussion, it is held that rhe trial Courl has mis-p.uidcci ilsL'il' ir not considering reason fbr condoning dclrrl' of 78 da1,s ils sll( h thc iirrIL qne .l order is liable to be set aside ll . ln tl.re rcsult. the Civil Revision Petition is allorved set irrg aside the order dated l.l 06.1()24 in I.A.No.8l8 of 2023 in O.S.No. lll of 2()l.l on the 1l lt' ol' the tri:rl ('ourt and consequently, the I.A.No.8l rJ ol ]0ll allou,ed condonirrg delay ol 78 days in filing the apptication under Orcler IX RLrle 13 ol' (l.l'.t]. in the suit. There shall bc no orcler as to costs. Misccllaneous al,plications, if any, pending shall stand clos,:cl. SD/.M.OSNIAN ALI BAIG .\NI REGISTRAR S \.- 'r SE:CT ON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The V Additrorral District Judge and Sessions Judge, Ranga tleddy District, LB Nagar. 2 One CC to Sri ]ella Srikanth, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Jommineni Vivekananda, Advocate [OPUC1 4. One CC to Sri (r shna Kishore Kowuri, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to [,4s Sarampally Mrudula, Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two CD CoPier; HIGH COURT I DATED: 16l1Ot2O2S ORDER CRP.No.1985 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRP l0l 6 _li \. I Ii \ tr_'tlt \ 2{ uri 21Uf Dr.e '' 1-t ,_-l i!: .'t ..? C) +t