The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NITISH KAR MOHAN OR REPRESENTING SRI K Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JIJSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PE-II'IION No.2l31 of 21t25 ORAL ORDF]R: Heard Sri Nitish Karoor, learned counsel rcpresenting Sri K.Mohan,, learned counsel tbr the petitioner.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Aflicle 221 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the action of the Principal District Judge, Karirnnagar, ln not receiving the appeal Iiled by the petitioner by complying with the objections dated 16.04.2025 raisod by the appellate Court C.M.A.SR.No.392 of 2025.

3. Petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.444 o[ 2023 on the file of tI Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-[I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karimnagar, against the respondents seeking declalation of title and perpetual injunction. The said suit was dismissed for rlcfault on

03.12.2024. Tlrerefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 read rvith Section l5l of Code ol'Civil I I 2 IiI- J C.R.P.No.213l ot 2025 Procedure, 1908 to restore th said suit to its original position by setting aside the dismissal rder dated 03.12.2024. By order dated 17.03.2025, learned II Additional Junior Civil Judgc- curn-ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karirnnagar, dismissed the sar application

4. Feeling aggrieved and issatisfied with the said ordcr, petitioner herein preferted an ppeal under Order XLIII Rulc I of CPC before the appellate ourt i.e. the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. The s e was returned on I 6.04.2025 with the lollowing objections: "i) C.C. oldecree not filed. ii) Courr t'ee not paid on Cou iii) Counset for the appellant not signed on each page of CMA. iv) The appellant filed the order u/o - 9 Rule 9 of C against the said order u/o.43 MA against the dismissal C, there is no CMA lies ule I of CPC, hence how the CMA is entertainable. Hence, may be returne

5. According to the Pettti ner, he has complied with the objections raised by the aPPel ate Court i.e., Objcction Nos.l, KLJ C R.l' \D 2l3l of2O25 2 and3. With regard to Objection No.4 i.e., maintainability of the appeal, he lias submitted that the appeal is rnaintainable in terms of Order Xl-lll Rulc t of CI'}C by complying with the said objections. When petitioner's counscl tried to re-submit the bundle, thc appellate Court is not receiving. Therefore, taking the said specific grouncl, thc petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Perusal of record would rcveat that appellate Couft returned the said bundle with the aforesaid objections including the objection of maintainability of appeal itself.

7. As discussed .supro, petitioncr preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule I of CPC challenging the older dated

11.03.2025 in I.A.No.524 of 2024 in O.S.No.444 of 2023 through which lcamed trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to restore the suit to its original position by sctting aside the order dated

03.12.2024 disrnissing the suit fol default KL, J CRPNo2t3lof2025

8. In thc light of the same, it is relevant to extract Order XLIII Rule I of CPC: ,.ORDER XLIII _ AP Rulc l: Appeals fronr als from Orders An appcal shall tie fi under the plovisions of m the following orders ection 104, namely: (a) an order undcr Rulc a plaint to be prcscnted where the proccdure s Order VII has been follo [0 of Order VII returning o the proper Courl except ecified in Rule l0-A of ed; (c) an ordcl undcl Rule application (in a case o to set aside the dismissal of Order IX rejecting an n to appeal) lor an order of a suit; (r1) an order under Rule an application (in a cas ordel to sct aside a decr l3 of Order tX rejecting open to appeal) for an passed ex parte; (lJ an order under Rulc 2 of Order XI; (l) an oldcr undcr Rule objection to thc draft endorsement; 34 of Order XXI on an f a docurnent or ol an fi) an order under Rulc XXI setting aside or rctu 72 or Rule 92 of Order ing to set aside a sale; fic) an older rejecting a sub-nrle ( l) of Rute 106 that an ordcr on the orig say. tht: application relc Rulc 105 of that Order is application made under of Ordcr XXI, provided al application, that is to to in sub-rule ( l) of pealable; (/r) an older undcl Rule to set aside the abatemen of Older XXll refusing or dismissal of a suit; 5 Iit-. J ( l? o No 2l3l ol2025 (/) an order under Rule l0 ol-Order XXII giving or refusing to give leave; (n) an order under Rulc 2 ol Order XXV re.jecting an application (in a crse opcn to appeal) lbr an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit: Qta) an order under llule 5 or Rulc 7 of'Order XXXIII rejecting an application tbr permission tcr sue as an indigcnt person; (p) orders in interpleader-su it undcr Rule i, Rule 4 or Rule 6 of Ordel XXXV; (q) an order undcr Rule 2, Rute 3 or Rulc 6 ol- Order XXXVIII; (r) an order under Rule l, Rule 2, Itule 2-A, I{ute 4 or Rule l0 of Order XXXIX; (s) an order under Rulc I or Rule 4 ol-Order XL.; (t) an order ol retLrsal uncler Rule l9 ol Order XLI to readmit, or under ltule 2 t of Order Xt.l to rehear, an appeal; (a) an order under Rule 23 or Ru[e 2i-A o1- Order XLI remanding a casc, where an appeal would lie liom the decree ol- the Appellate Court; (w) an order under l{ule 4 o1 Order XL\/ll granting an application Ibr leview."

9. It says an order under IX Rule 9 of C.P.C., rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) fbr an order to set aside the dismissal of the suit is appealable in terms o1'Order XLIII 6 KL, J cRPNo.2l31oa2025 .+ J Rule I oi CPC. Therefore, the a pellatc Court has to entertain the said appeal, if the sarne is ot rwise in order.

10. Perusal of thc objcctions aised by the aPPellate Court would reveal that the aPPellate ourl retumed the said bundle on 16.04.2025 with the aforcsai four objections. In the said objcctions, there is no menttotl at petitioner has to resubmit the bundte within a sPecific P riod by complying with the objections raised by th.e appellat Court 1 1. It is the specilic casc o[ th petitioner that when he tried to re-submit the bundlc bY co plying with the objections raised by the aPPellate Court, t e appellate Court refused to receive the bundle. Thus aPP llate Court can't retum the bundle without receiving it. If e petitioner failed to comPlY with the objections raised bY it, t has to pass a reasoned order specifying the reason to Petitlo er for returning and that the petitioner failed to re-submit the bundle by complying with the objections. It can't refuse to rece ve the bundle. 7 KL, J C.R t' \o 213 I of 2025

12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, to receive the appeal bundle subrnitted by the petitioner by complying rvith the objections raised by it including maintainability of the appeal i1'the same is otherwise in order, number it, entertain it and dispose of it, in accordance with law.

13. Registry is directed to return the bundle to the petitioner herein. Miscellaneous applications, il any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// 1 SD/- K.AMMAJI REGISTRAR \EPUW v sEcroN oFFrcER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. 2 One CC to SRl. K MOHAN Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies SS/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:04107t2025 ORDER CRP.No.2131 of 2025 E Sir 4t \\' l^ J iJli I t t- lJG 2U5 j A21 f) .{ DISPOSING OF THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS