The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Bethi Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. N. Janardhan Reddy The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAI{SING TTAO NANDIKONDA CML REVISION PETITION Nos.2265 & 1796 of 2019 lgth DECEMIIER,2025 C.R.P.No.2265 of 2019 Betrveen: Smt.Korriire I-axmi Sri Keshireddy Jaipal Reddy C.R.P.No.1796 of 2019 Between: Srrt.Kornire Laxrni Sri Keshireddy Rajender ... l'cti tioner/f)efenda n t ... Rcs po nd en t/Pltr intiff ...PetitionerlDefendant ...Respondent/Plaintiff C.R.P.Nos.:265 & 1796 of 201 CON,IMON OITDEII: Sincc both the Cir,il Rcvision Pctitions have been filed bv the same petitioner, lhoLrglr rrlising out ol'dilferent suits, and as the pleadings in both the rcvisions ale sirnihr. they are hcard together and disposed of by this colluroll

2. Cl.R.t'}.\o 1265 ol 20 19 is lrled seeking to set aside the Order dated l1.11.20 l8 in 1..\.No.1028 of'1017 in O.S.No. 186 of 2014 passed by the leanred Plincrpal .lunior (-ivil Judgc. Huzurabad

3. C.R.P.No.l7()6 of 20 19 is filed seeking to set aside the Order dated

14.11.2018 in I A.\'o. 1030 ol 20 l7 in O.S.No. 187 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal .lunior Civil Juclgc. I Iuzr"rrabad.

4. I leard NIr.llethi Venkateshwarlu, leamed counsel for the petitioner/delcnclurrt in C.l{.P.No.2265 & 1796 ol 2019 and Mr.N.Janardhan Reddy, lcarncd counse I lirr lcspondent/plaintill in the same cases. Perused the record. For the sake 01'convenience and clarity, the parties herein shall be referred to. as they are arrayed belore the trial Court. I I ,{ 3 NNR,J C.R.P.Nos.2265 & 1796 of 2019

5. The brief lacts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the delendant in C.R.P.No.2265 & 1796 oi 20 19, respective respondent/plaintifT filed rcspective suit against the clelendant herein fbr perpetual injunction, which rvcre decrecd on 1I.08.20 I5.

6. The petitioner is the det-endant in C.l{.P. Nos. 1265 and 1796 ol 20 19 'l'he respective respondents/plaint iffs filed scparate suits against the petitioner/defendant seeking perpetual injunctions to restrain the petitioner/def-endant and the legal heirs etc., liom interf-ering with the peacefirl possession of the plaintitT over the suit schedule propeny. The trial Coun decreed the suits in favour of the respondents/ptaintitls on I1.08.2015, granting the reqr"rested injunctions.

7. 'fhe petitioner/deflendant, dissatisfied with the ex-porte decrees dated

11.08.2015 in O.S.No.l86 and 187 ol 2014, filed I.A.No.1028 ol'2017 in

0.S.No.186 ol l0 l4 and [.A.No.1030 ot'2017 in O.S.No. l87 ol 2014 ur.rder I Order IX Rule l3 CPC and under Section 5 of Limitation Act seekingthe trial Court to condone the delay of 689 days in liting tl.re respective petitions and to set-aside the decree in O.S.Nos.186 and 187 of 2014, after hearing both sides, the trial Courl opined that the petitioner/detbndant failed to explain the reason \ I 4 C.R.P.Nos.2265 & 1796 of 20 for corrdoning the dela1, of 689 days and dismissed the respective Interlocutory Applications.

8. ,\ssailinq Illc :rrrrre-. tlrc peritioncr, de lendant filed C.R.P. Nos. 2265 and 1796 ol'2019 sccking to sct-aside the Orders dated 14. I1.2018 in l.A.No. 1028 oi 2017 in O.S No.l86 o1-1014 and I.A.No.l030 of 2017 in O.S.No.187 of 2014 passed br the learncd Principal Junior Civil Judge. Huzurabad, w'hich were passed agirinst her on the ground tl'ra t she engaged the counsel and he assured that he rvill looli atier the rnatter but unfortunately, she being an illiterate irncl irrnoccnt villaec lady and she does not have any legai knowledge as to the legal proceedings and she has trvo tender aged children, as such she could not proceed u ith the case arrd thc trial Court came to wrong conclusion that tlre pctitioncr/dctendant failed to assign cogcnt reasons to condone the delay of 689 da1,s in filing the [.A.Nos.t029 &. 1030 of 2017 to set-aside the ex-parte decrees dated 11.08.2015 in O.S.Nos. 186 and 187 of 2014.

9. It is lunhcl contencle.d that the pctitioner is in possession and cultivation of the suit schcdule lands, having lawfulty purchased the same frorn the rightful owner under a registcled sale deed, and that such possession and cultivation are well ivithin the knowledge of the entire village. 5 NNR,J C.R.P.Not.2265 & 1796 of 2019

10. It is turther contended that, Ibr the aforesaid reasons, she could not contest the suits. She is in continuous possession and cultivation ol the suit schedufe properly, and if the delaf is not condoned and the a-\-perte decrees are not sct aside, she rvill lose her valuable rights over the suit schedule propeIt)'. I l. l'he learned counsel lbr the lcspondents/plainti 1'l\ contcndcd that it was the responsibility o[ the petitioneridelbndant to ensure that the cases were propeLly prosecuted by giving necessary instructions to her counsel lrom time to tirne. I{aving engaged an Advocate and being aware of the pendency ol the suits, it was her duty to keep herself infbrmed about the progress of the proceedings. lt was lurther contended that the petitioner/def'endant has no manner ol' right, title, or interest in thc sr"rit schedule lancls, that she neither purchased thc same liom anyone nor was she ever in possession thereofl and that the respondents/plaintiffs ale the absolute and exclusive owners and possessors ol thc suit schedule properlies.

12. Llaving heard the submissions of both counsel, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the Ieasons stated in the pelitions rvere not sufficient to condone the dela1, o1'(r89 days, as thc pctitioncri del-cndant was required to explain the delay on a day-lo-day basis. The petitioner'/del'endant 6 C.R.l'.Nos.2265 & 1796 oJ 201 failed to satisfactorily crplain such an abnormal delay and, therefore, the leamed Judge t,as not inclinc-d lcl allow the [nterlocutory Applications and accordingly disnrissed thc san)c. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revisions have bcen 1lled orr thc ground that, although the petitioner/defendant had engaged M r. M.Satvanaravanrr. Advocate after receipt of sunrmons, the Advocate did not file thc rvrittcn staternent, resulting in the passing of ex-parte judgments. I3. It is furlher corrtcndcd bv the learred counsel for the petitioner,/defendant that the learncd Trial Judge faited to consider the fact that the petitioner/de fendant is an illiterate rvidow, having no support from any person and burdcned uith the responsibility ol maintaining her tender-aged children, eking out her livelilrood through agricultural work. It is submitted that the learned Judge did not take into account the submission that the Advocate. who lrad assured the petitioner of attending to the matter, failed to do so. Owing to hel innocence and illiteracy. the petitioner could not effectivety follorv up thc' proceedings

14. It is furthcr contended that the pctitioner/defendant has been in possession and en-joynrent of the suit schedule properties since the date ofher I : I I t I /' I I I 1 NNf,J C.R.P.Nos.2265 & 1796 of 2019 purchase, and that the trial Court, u,ithout properly appreciating the pleadings, dismissed the Interlocutory Applications in a routinc'manner. I5. lt is lurther contcncied that the husbancl of the petitioncr/de l'cndan t died on 03.04.2004 in a motor vehicle accidcnt involving a 'l'ractor bc'aring Registration No. AP R 4864, rvhich r,r'as driven by its driver ar.rd orvned by the respondent/plaint ilt-. It is submitted tl.rat, subsequent to the said incident, a Panchayat was convened in thc village, during which the respondent/plaintitT agreed to pay a sum ol [ts. 2,50,000/- to the petitioneri del'endant and her children towards cornpensation. Horvever, only a portion of the agreed amount was paid, and the balance remains unpaid. lt is alleged that, owing to the said dispute and with a view to wreak vengeance against the petitioner'/de t'endant, the respective respondents/plaintills instituted the suits for injunction on the basis ol t-abricated and concocted documents, in collusion with the vendors of the petitioner/det-endant, despite the. t'act that the respondents/plaintif ts were never in possession olthe suit schcdule property

16. It is further contended that thc trial Courl dismissed the Interlocutory Applications without properly appreciating the reasons set out in the supporting affidavits and in the absence ol valid and sustainable grounds. The Court failed to take into considclatiorr the hurnanitarian aspects involved \ .\ 8 C.R. P.Nos.2265 & 1796 of20 in the matters, particular[1, the lhct that the petitioner is an illiterate widow with minor children and that she possesses valuable rights in respect ol the suit schedule properl ies

17. Admittedl),, the petitioner/defendant is a rvidorv, aged about 40 years as on the date of liting ol the revisions, and she is claiming title over the suit schedule properl)'. \ perusal olthc plaint slrou's that the respondents/plaintills are also clairning titlc ovcr tlre ver1, sanre suit schedule propefty, allegedly purchased from the sarne vendor fl'our u'hor.n the delendant clairns title. In that regard, the defendant is stated to have purchased the said land in the year 1999 from Sri Jana Mallaiah and Sri Jana Srvarny under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 219 of 200-1. datcd 23.01.2004, for valid consideration, in respect o1'Iand admeasuring Ac.0.l0 gts in Survey No. 366/,4 and Ac.0.29 gts in Survey No. 366/8 (conrpact land). situated at Pothireddypally Village, Karimnagar District 18, Both the petitioner/defendant and the respondents/plaintiffs contend that they are in possession of the subiect properlies. It is relevant to note that the i suits filed by the plaintifts against the defundant are only for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the tlefendant fronr interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule propcrties I I 9 NNR,J C.R. P.No:,,2265 & 1796 <rf20l9

19. [t is seen from the record that the petitioner/de{'endant clairrs to have filed a lvritten statelnent along u'ith matcrial papers and to have obtained a certified copy thereoL Horver,'er, as per the casc of the respective plaintitl's, the written statement said to har.e been tlled on 3 I .07.20 l7 appears to have been fited only along with an application under Order IX Rute 13 CPC, and prior to thereto no written statemcnt *,as Illed.

20. On a perusal of the order passcd by the learnetl trial Judge, it is evident that sulficient time rvas grxnted to the pet itione r/de'lendant fbr tiling the written statement. Notice in i.A. No. 664 of 2014 rvas served on 27.02.2015, and despite granting more than six months' time, an ex-parte decree came to be passed on I I .08.20 I 5. I-lowever, the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was filed only on 3 I .07.20 I 7, alter a delay ol more than two years. 21, The explanation olfcled for tlre dclay, is that die petitioner/defbndant is a widow with tendcr-aged children and was eking out her livelihood through agricultural work, and theretbre could nol actively pursue the matter with her counsel. While there is a responsibility cast upon the Advocate to keep the client inlormed either by issuing a letter or notice regarding the necessity ol filing of the written statenlcnt or else there is possibility of passing of an ex-parte decree, though thcre is also a corresponding duty on the part of the 10 C.R.P.Nos.2265 & 1796 of 20 litigant to tbllow Lrp \\,ith the counsel and remain vigilant. In the present case, the petitione,rldefundant appears to have rernained silent for more than two years. No dor"rlrt. the responsibi lity is shared, ihc Advocate is expected to inforrn the client, and the parlf is expected to lollorv up to ascertain the status of the case

22. Considering thc background ol the petit ioncr/de lcndant and the place tiom rvhich she hails, it carrnot reasonably be expected that, after filing the Vakalat, she would be arvare ol thc requircurent to ftle a written statement within the prescribed period ol30 days. or even rvithin the extended period ol 90 days. A wornan hailing l'ronr a rural background cannot be presumed to have knowledge of procedural requirements follorving the filing of a Vakalat, including the ne'cessity ol filing a written statcnrent. In such circurnstances. a greater dutf is cast upon the counsel to inlbrm thc party about the procedural steps to be taken. including the filing of the r,'.ritten statement after entering appearance.

23. In the present case. though the petitioner/defendant engaged counsel, no written statement was filed on her behalf, and consequently, she was set ex-parte on 16.07.2015, and the suits were decreed on I 1.08.2015. I / 11 NNR,I C-RP.N0[.2265 & 1796 o/ 2019

24. Considering the above circumstances and the background fiorn which the petitioner/defendant hails, this Court is of the opinion that the reasons cited by the petitioner constitute sufticicnt causc. ,,\ccordingll . the delaf in filing the petitions to set aside the decrees in O.S. Nos. 186 and I tt7 of 2014 deserves to be condoned. The finding o1- the trial Court that the petitioner/defendant was required to explain the dela1, on a da1'-to-da1' basis oar)not be nrechanically applied to the facts ol the present cases. I \

25. Having regard to the lact that thc pctitioner/dc fbndant hails fi'om a rural background and is a single parent o1-tender-aged childrcn without any ettbctive support, this Court finds the present cases to be fit fbr interference. Consequently, the findings recorded by the tLial Courl and the orders passed by the leamed Judge are liabte to be sct aside

26. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, and the Orders dated l4.l 1.2018 passed in [.A. Nos. 1028 and 1030 ol 2017 in O.S. Nos. 186 and 187 of2014 by the learncd Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, are set aside. The delay is hereby condoned, subject to the condition that the petitioner/defendant shall pay costs ol' Rs.5,000/- ro rhe respective respondent/plaintifl'within one month frorr the date ol receipt of a copv of this C.R.P.Nos.2265 & 1796 of common ordcr. Failure to cornply with this condition shall result in the vacating of thc orders passed by this Courl As a seqLrel, miscellaneous petitions, pending il any, shail stand closed. Sd/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad.(With records if any) 2. One CC to Mr. Bethi Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mr. N. Janardhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam/ba I I HIGH COURT DATED:1811212025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.2265 and 1796 of 2019 lt+lE a) O \ * i I F{:8 7tl2$ I l * rr'-Ct ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITTONS G W