Heard Mr v. Hanmanth Rao, Iearned cr r rtsel lor the

: Sri V.Hanumanth Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. K.Sreenivas Counsel for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following : ORDER l IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELA.I IGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKI YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITOIN NO.2562 of 2O24 15TII DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 Between: Gurrarl Sairam ... Petitioner/d -' i:ndant Sri Siddi Vinayaka RCC Pipcs lndustry and anothc ... Respondents/ plaintiff/dcfent I rnt No.2 ORDER: Heard Mr. V. Hanmanth Rao, Iearned cr r rtsel lor the petitioner/ dcfend ant and Mr. K. Srcenivas, leartr,r I counscl for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. Perused the record

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieve,l by the order claLed 22.O7.2024 passed in I.A.No.4O7 of 20'24 i;r O.S.No.51 ol '2022 on the file ol the Senior Civil Judge i1 Shadr-ragar, u,herein, a petition filed under Section 5 of Lirr i :rtion Act to condone dela)' sf 1925 days in filing a petition ur der Order IX Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte order passr:i against the revision petitioner, has been clismissed 2

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 liled the suit in O.S.No. 159 of 20 18 on rhe file of Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar against the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking specific performance of Agreement of sale, dated 05.09.20 16 ald to declare the registered sale deed dated 26.O5.2018 vide document No.8657 of 2018 executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2 as null and void with respect to the suit schedule land consisting of Ac.2.15 Gts., in Sy.No.168/E situated at Akuthotapally Village of Amangal Mandal, R.R.District (previously Mahabubnagar District). Said suit on account of reorganization of Districts has been re-numbered as O.S.No.S1 of 2022 and is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar.

4. In said suit, the revision petitioner herein has been set ex-parte on 30.04.20 19 and his right to file r,vritten statement has been forfeited. The reason statecl for non-filing of written statement is that the petitioner engaged a counsel by name Sri. Laxma Redd1. to defend the suit. Said counsel impressed upon the petitioner that he would inform the petitioner whery:rrer- his presence is necessary. Due to personal inconvenience and COVID- 19, there \\.as no contact betu,een 3 the petitioner and the counsel and thereaf er due to reorganization of Districts, the suit was transler r :d from the Senior Civil Judge's Court at Mahabubnagar Lo the Ser-rior Civil Judge's Court at Sl-radnagar. The petitioner \\'i r under the impression that fresh notices n,ould be served or the partics after transfer of cases. However, no such thtr ; happened. Meanrvhile the petitioner heard rumours that dut ,o non-filing o[ rvrittcn statemclrt, his rights u,cre forfeited at L, he has no right to contest the matter. Upon hearing this 'tmours, the re\/lslor-t petitioner cngaged the present couns( and made enqr-riry about the status of the suit. Upon , r (luirj', it is revealed that the petitioner has been set ex-part: due to non filing of- u,ritten statement and currently the rcs: rndent No.1 has led evidence and the matter stood post: I for cross examination of PWl by the respondent No.2.

5. At, this juncture, the revision petitioner file - rhe petrtion under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC r.r,ith a petition undr r Section 5 of Limitat ion Act to condone the delay of 1925 da.r ,; in filing the petition. The respondent No.1 opposed the perrt on by filing r,r,ritten counter stating that the reasons cited for non-filing of r,r'ritten statement i.e. engaging thc counsel by n:r oe Lakshma 4 Reddy and said counsei not giving proper guidance to the petitioner, followed by making enquiry and learning about the status of the case, are all denied.

6. Upon considering the case oi thc revision petitioner, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those r.r.ho sleep over their rights. Further, it is hcld that a person rn ho is unaware of law may not escape the liabilitl' b,r- violating the lau, mereiy by being unaware of its contents. Further, the learned Trial Court examined the fact that the petitioner herein w,as set ex-parte in April,2O19 and that COVID started in March,2O2O and after February, 2022 onu,ards, the courts nere running for one yezrr before COVID and for tu,o -1,ears after COVID, the petitioner has not taken any steps. Therefore, the reasons stated for delay were not considerecl and the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by said order, the prescnt Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 7 . In grounds of revision, the petitioner pleaded that there is no limitation prescribed for a petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, that the defence taken in the rvritten statement is to bc , taken seriously, that the suit is at the staf e of cross- examination of respondent No.1/plaintiff and tha no prejudice woulcl be caused in case his u'ritten statement is taken on record b1' setting aside the ex-parte order. F\ Lrther, it is emphasized that the time period fixed under Ord: - VIll Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory but it is only directory z nd therefore prayed that the Civil Revision Petition be allou'ed B. The learned counsel for revision petitionc' argued that there is r-ro limitation prescribed for fiiing o[ a 1,r tition under Order [X Rule 7 ol CPC. Hou,ever, by way of abun< ant caution, a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act was fil: 1 to condone delay of 1925 da1,5. Further, it is argued that the t latter is still at the stage of cross examination of PWI and lherefore, no prejuclice u,ould be caused, in case, his written ;tatement is talcen on record

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for resp rndent No.l argued that there has been an inordinate delay 6f 925 da1,s in filing the .,r'ritten statement and the reasons ass Lt .ned are not tenable 6

10. A perusal of the record, more particularly, the plaint shows that the suit is filed seeking specific performance of Agreement of sale dated 05.09.2016 executed betr,r,een the revision petitioner and respondent No.1. Thereafter, just prior to filing of the suit, after the legal notice u,as issued, the rev1s10n petitioner executed registered sale deed document No.8657 of 2018, dated 26.O5.20 18 for an extent of Ac.1.15 Gts., out of total extent of Ac.2.15 Gts. of the suit schedule property 1 1. It is seen that currently, the revision petitioner is having ownership and possession over Ac.1.O0 Gts. and the respondent No.2 is having ownership and possession over the remaining extent of Ac. 1. 15 Gts. of the suit schedule property. The suit is still pending at the stage of cross-examination of PW 1 . As pleaded by the revision petitioner, there is no limitation prescribed for {iling a petition under Order lX Rule 7 of CPC. However, there is a time period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC to file the written statement within 3O days of receipt of summons from the court in the suit. In the instant case, summons \lrere served and the revision petitioner has engaged a counsel. However, after engaging the counsel, the 7 revlsron petitioner failed to file the written st: -ement arld therefore, he w'as set ex parte and right to file writt< n statement has been forfeitr:d. This cvent of the review petitior er being set ex-parte occurred in April, 2019. Up to March, 20.2 ), there \'vas no issue about COVID pandemic. Again after Fe: -uary, 2022 also, there \vas no issue of COVID pandemic an < the courts functioned regularlv. Therefore, the reason asstg ned by the re\4s10n pctitior-rcr for r-ron-fihng of written stat(:r lent is not convincing and untenablc. Shifting the blame to tk r counsel on record has hecome a routine ground for seeking 'e1ief. While there is responsibility on the counsei on record t I pursue the CASC diligenti1., there is also responsibility on tlr: parties to follou, the case fi'om time to time. A party cannot l..r ep quiet for five (5) years and then shift the blame for non fitir q of written statement on to the counsei. While seeking to s,r t aside the ex parte order under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, the tetitioner is also seeking extension of time for filing writter statement which is onll' 90 days as per Order VIII Rule rf the Civil Procedure Code 8

12. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kailash v. Nanhku and othersr, the time period specified in Order VIII Rule I of CpC is only directory and not mandatory. It is held that costs may be imposed on tl-re defendant for seeking extension of time for filing the rvritten statement. Relevant portion is extracted and produced belor,r,: "ir )- re purposc ofproviding the tinrc schcclulc lor liling rhe rrrirrcn statentent under Order VIII. Itule I of CI,(' is to cxpcditc and not to scuttle the hearing. l'he provision spells out a disahilitl, on the deli:ndant. lt does not impose an er.nbargo on the pou.er of thc C.ourt t() e\tend thc time. 'l'hough, thc languagc of thc proviso to Rule I of Order VItl of the CPCI is couched in ncgarive tbrm. ir docs not spccili,any pcnal consequences flowing I'rom the non-compliancc. 'fhe provision being in the clomain of the l,rocedur.ul Lau,. it has to be held directory and not rnandatorr,. Ihe porvcr of the ('ourt Lo cxtcncl tinre for filing the written statelrcnt ber,6p1l 11," tinrc scliedule pror idctl by Ordel VIII. Rule I of' tlrc CP(' is not conrplerclv taken A\'\"a\'. (v) Though Order Vlll, Rule I ol' the CI,CI is a part ol prurceclr.rral Lan,ald hcncc dircctory, kceping in ,"icu, the nced lor cxpcditious trial ol civil causes which pcrsuaded thc parliament to enact rhe provision in its prcsent forrn. it is held that ordinarily. the time schodule containcd in the provision is to bc follo',r,cd as a rLtle and tleparture theretiom u,ould be by u,a1 ol r'xccptior.r. A pr.avcr fbr -rxcnsi()n of tirne t.nade by the del'endant shall not bc granted.just as a rnatter olroutine atrd nrerely lor asking. nlore so ulren thc period ' MANU/sc/O264/2005 ::9:: of .)0 clal s has crpircd. I'.xtension of time may be allou'e.l t ; way of zut erccl.rtiur.t. tirt rcasrttts to be assigned by the del'endant lrl I also lle placcrl t,n rc(()r(l in rrtitinq- horrsoevcr briefll. b]'the ( ),rf orl ils being satislicrl. I:xtcttsiott ol-tintc rnay bc allowcd il'it rvir: ccded to trc qircn 1or tlre crrcrrrt:litnccs shich lrrc cxceptiotra[, occ.r iilned b1 rcasons bclt,rrtl the c()ntrol ol' the del'endant and grar',t injustice rroukl bc oc(usi()nL'(l il tl.ic tinre \\,as rtoI extendcd. (]()'t mav []e irnposcd antl allidarit or documents in support of tlr: grounds pleacJed b1, thc delcrrtlant (irr crtension of time may be I ntanded. clepcndirrg on tlle tilcts irntl citcLtntstatrces of a given case.'

13. As per atltovc legal ratio laid dor i " lr)' the Hon'ble Supremt' Collrl of lttdia, the time fratl t set out in Order Vlll Rulc I is onl-y directory and n()t mandatory Therefore, this Court can exercise its discretion extend the time for liling written statement.

14. In the instant c:rse. ol-l account ol the -, ct that the valuablc rights ol pc t it ioner/ delendant No. 1 to i n extent of Ac. 1.O0 Gts. arir involvecl, since the trial is still at the stage of cross-cxamirratior-r of PW 1 , an opportunity can bC given to the petitioner herein to protect his rights subject t,) payment of costs.

15. In the result, thc Civil Revision Petition r aliowed bv setting aside thc order, dated 22.O7.2024 passe(l : I.A.No.4O7 I :: l0: : of 2024 in O.S.No.S1 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar. Consequentll., I.A.No.4O7 of 2024 stands alloncd. Hor,r.ever, it is made clear that the dclay of 1925 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte order dated

30.O4.2O19 passed in O.S.No.5l of 2022, is condoned subject to condition of petitioner paying cost of Rs.S,OOO/_ to the Telangana State Legal Services Authorit-y, Hyderabad, u,ithin Tu,o (2) u,eeks from today, and file proof of the same into the Registry. Pendir-rg miscellaneous petitior-rs, if any, shall stand closed. No costs SD/- P PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senror Civil Judge at Shadnagar. 2. One CC to Sri V.Hanumanth Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K.Sreenivas, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies Svs/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212025 ORDER CRP.No.2562 ol2O24 IH -t - _\\ a-- -)) J i 3 rE[ ?u5 1 L. ,. - Ij t,4 r C_! 1t \',., 4'./ .^' ,./ ALLOWING THE CRP 2AIta d