Vadla_ Jagannadham g/.o Kashaiah v. 1. Vadla Parandhamulu and another

Counsel for the Respondents: S SURENDER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER -r- IN THE HIGH COIJRT FOR THE STATE OF TEI ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANl IIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.22l6 of 2( I 9 2o'r' NovEMBER,2025 Bctween: Vadla Jagannadhanr

1. Vadla Parandharnulu-

2. Y adla Sathaiah ...Petitioner/Dr.l :nda nt No. I ...Respondent \ o.l/Plaintiff ...Respondent No.2/ I)ct .ndant No.2 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is fileJ by rhe petitioner/defendant No. I seeking to set-aside thc rrder. daled

31.07.2019 in 1.A.No.205 of 2016 in O.S.No.06 of 2( 5 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Yellareddy, Nizarr rad Districr (hereinaltcr rcl-erred to as "trial Cour1"), wherein the r arned Judqe disrnissed the application filed lbr condonation of' c:lay ol 2lg days. 2 The brief facts of the case are that respondent t{ r t herein filed a suit for perpetual inj unction vide O.S.No.6 of I ( I 5 on the t i I ! 2 -- NNR."/ C.R,P.No.22l6 oI20t9 file of the Junior Civil Judge, Yellareddy against the peritioner herein and his brother, who are arraycd as delendant Nos. I and 2 before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, after filing of the suit and on receipt of summons, he and defendant No.2 engaged an Advocate to defend their case. However, subsequently, certain disputes arose between the petitioner and his brother/respondent No.2/deflendant No.2, as a result of which, respondent No.2 colluded with the plaintiff and failed to support the petitioner in defending the case. While the petitioner/defendant No. I was carrying out agricultural work in his field one day, thc plaintifflrespondent No. I came there, obstructed him, and stated that he had obtained an ex parte decree in his flavour' Irnrnediately thereafter, the petitioner approached his Advocatc who informed that the suit had already been decreed on

29.12.2015. Consequently, there was a delay tn fiting the application. The said application was contested by respondent No. I /plaintiff, while respondent No.2/defendant No.2 chose not to contest the I.A.No.205 of 2016 in O.S.No.06 of 2015.

4. The learned Judge, upon examining the entirc material J NNft,J C,R I \,'o.2:I6 of 20l9 placed on record and considering the decisions cited b1, both the parties, i.e., Chikluri Narsimha (died) per LRs ls Dislrict Colleclor, Rongtreddy District, Hyderabad and ono,hert and also Pantliyan vs ,4runa AmmaP, concluded that the rl rsons put lorth were not satisf-actoly. The Court observed that b: h parlies are relatives engaged in agriculrural work, and therelorr , the plea of having no krowledge of the ex parte decree passr< by their Couft on 29.12.2015 appeared to be unbelievable. Cor r :qucntly, the petition was d ismissed

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present ( iril Revision Petition has been filed contending that the learned .tr r ge l-ailed to consider that del'endant No.2, being the younger br,ther of the petitioner, was entrusred r.vith the responsibility of look Lng after the case, which is neither uncommon nor unusual. It is c: rtended that the explanation ollered by the petitioner ought t: have been accepted as reasonable and sufficient by the trial (krr rt. '[he trial Court ought to have apprcciated that valuable rights r f the parties in prime immovable property are involved in the ca-.t and that no 'zors1zyalors ' zo to lNoc; 74 (MAD) (Madhurai Banch) II .- prejudice would have been caused to respondent No. l/ptaintiff if 4 NNR,I C.R.P.No.22l6 of 2019 the matter been decided on merits.

6. It is lurther contended that, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reporled in 20 l9 (5) ALD 6g (SC), thc cause ofjustice demands that adjudication should, as far as possible, be on merits, and that a liberal approach must be adopted in matters relating to condonation ofdelay. It is also contended that the delay in the present case is negligible and that ther.e exists sufficient cause for the petitioner's absence on the day, he was set ex parte_ However, the leamed Judge faited to properly appreciate these aspects while declining to condone the delay. 7 Having heard the rival contentions of both parties and upon perusal of the entire material placed on record, it is evident that the suit was fi ted by respondent No. l/plaintiff seeking a perpetual injunction against both the defendants. Admittedty, thc petitioner hcrein and def'endant No.2 are brothers, who were anayed as defendants before the trial Court. The petitioner contends that both defendants had engaged counsel to defend the suit, and the reason cited for seeking condonation ofdelay is that ) NNR,J C h., .No.Dl6 of 2019 disputes alose between the petitioner and his brrr-ler, and defendant No.2 altegedly colluded with and joined Ir nds with respondent No I /plaintiff-. Consequently, the petit ( ner. \vas unable to contest thc suit, resulting in the suit beirl decreed ex parte. Except for these asserlions, no plausible or sa isfactory explanation has been fumished by the petitioner to i rable the Court to consider his case by invoking a liberal pproach. The reasons given in the petition are inadequate, ar< the trial Court was correct in dismissing it. This Court also fin,l , no valid basis to interfere rvith the trial Court's order

8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision ,ctition is dismissed. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, pending il any. ;l.rall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. N SRIHARI D: )UTY REGISTRAR ,/ \9 iECTION OFFICER

1. The Junior Civil Judge, Yellareddy, Nizamabad District. 2. One CC to SRl. VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Advocate [OPL( ] 3. One CC to SRI S SURENDER REDDY Advocate [OPU() 4. Two CD Copies PK/PSL -/^'N' HIGH COURT l DATED:2011112025 CRP.No.2216 of 2019 SdE I ( )q n q') o() \( ) rv\' r {(-CI ..j-- * CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED NO COSTS 6 JKi tz[>-lre .