The High Court · 2025

... Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC prayi the affidavit filed in support of the petition, direct the respondents for not to chang g that in the circumstances stated in the High Court may be pleased to the nature of land in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 0-16 guntas in Sy.No.2, Ac.2-05 guntas, in Sy.No.3 and Ac. 2-06 guntas, in Sy.No.4 total admeasuring Ac. 4-27 guntas, situated at Kismatpur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of main CRP in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri M. Rajender Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Suresh Bhaktula The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAX I NARAY,.\NA ALISHETTY CIVIL MICELI-ANESOUS AP EAI- No.468 of 2024 JUDGMENT: I'l.rc prcsent Civil Miscellaneo Appcal is filcd against the order dated 24.06.2024 passed in I.A o.t86 ol 2023 in O.S.No.57l ol 2007 on the file the V Additional District JLrdge. I{anga ReddY District at L.B.Nagar, whereby and rv reunder the application tiled by the appellants under Order IX l{ule r/u' Scction l5l of C[)C was dismissed.

2. Hcald Sri M.Rajender Reddy, lea ned counsel tbr thc appellants and Sri Suresh Bhaktula, learned couus I lbr thc respondents. Perused the recold. l. 'fhe appellants herein are the ainti['1.s, aud the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. F r converriencc, hercinalter, the pafties will be refened to as they ale at 1,ed in thc suit

4. The brief llacts relevant for adju ication oi the present Appeal are that the ptaintiffs instituted the suit in O.S.No.57l o12007 on the llle of the lI Additional District Jtr Ilanga lteddy District at I-.B.Nagar', fbr parlition and separat posscssion of sr-rit schedule propcrly. -fhc defendants entered ap arance aud fited theil written --! 2 L.\.1. . t ( t1.1.,\it 168 o/ )t)ll statement and the rnatter was colning up for e',,ide,ce of the plaintifts. hou,ever', as the plaintifl's lailed to appear and adduce c'idc.ce. thc suit rvas disr.nissed lor detault on 04.06.2014.

5. The plaintiffs filed an applicarion vide I.A.r,\o. 186 ol l0l.j under o.de' IX Rule 9 r/w Section 151 cpc, lor restor.atio, o1- the suit by setting aside the order dated 04.06.2014,, along with an ap;rlicarion vide t.A.No.6l0 of 20 I9 for condonation of delay ol lgl2 davs in filing thc restoration application. The application-I.A.No.6 l0 of 2019 was allow,ed vide order dated 3 I .01.2023, however. thc application filed lor rcstoration of thc suit i.c., I.A.No. l8 6 of 2023 n.as clisrrrisscd vide order dated 24.06.2024, with an observation that thc ptaintiti.s have approachc-d thc Court blaming their. previous counsel ancl u crc not diligent in pursuing the matter and it is the duty ol the plaintilts to be prescnt belbre the Court and thus, there is clear neuligencc on the part of thc plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said order., the prescrlt Appcal is filed.

6. Learned counsel lor the appellants submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed for restoration of the sr,rit without properlv appreciating the facts and circurnslances ol- the case_ t t -- LNA. J L l'1.1.lo.I6,\ o.[ )021 He lirrther submitted that the trial Courl at led to consider the lact that the application filed by the plaintiffs r condonation of delay rvas allowcd on the same gror.tnds on which he application tbr restoration is also liled, theretbre, the impugned ord r is unsustainablc. IIe fr-r rrher submitted that the trial Courl failed to a prcciate the lact that the suit rvas transf'erred lrom the Court where it was originally instituted, i.e., the Courl ol the II Additional Dist Judge, to the Court of V Additional District Judge, Ranga Re y District at L.B.Nagar, and ttie plaintifl's were not informed of th said t'act b1'their previoLrs counsel and as such, the plaintifii coul not properl1' prosccr"rte thcir case. He further submitted that for the istake/de lault and rnisleading on the part of their previous counsel, the plaintilfs should not be put to loss as their substantial rights are invol d and accordingly, prayed to allow thc Appcal.

1. Per contra learned counsel for t e lespondcnts subnritted that the plaintiff-s were not diligent in pu uing the rnatter and did not appcaL bclbre the trial Courl when th rnatter was corning up lbr marking of the documents on their beh lf. He further subrnitted that the appellants/ptaintiffs were not dilige t in prosecuting the suit and - ^' ,l .l L.\..1. ./ (;M.4 Nrt 168 of 2021 - for their ciefault. tl.rey arc simply throwing the blar.ne on their pr.evious counsel that [-rc lras not inlormed them about the status of thc case. [Je furthel subrnirrcd thar the plaintiffs have failed to rnakc out any ground to interf'crc with the irnpugrrcd ordcr passed by thc trial Court and pra)cd to dismiss the Appeal.

8. A pelusal ol the record would disclose that thc suit was conring up lor trial sincc Novenrber, 2012 and it was adjourned fi.orn tirnc to time and was lrnally posted on 04.06.2014 for appearancc of p.W- l for rnarking 01- docLrments and on the said date, since the ptainti Ils were not present belbre the Court, the suit was dismisscd for non_ prosecution. Seeking to set aside the said dismissal order. and to restore the suit. thc plaintills filed an application under.Orrler IX ttule 9 CPC along r.vith an application under Section 5 o1-Limitation Acr on

21.06.2019 to condone the delay of 1812 days in filing thc rcsroration application. l-hc condone delay application was allowed on 3 1.03.2023, hou'gvg1 , the application filed for sctting aside the dismissal orcicr and restoration of suit was dismissed.

9. In the afficlavit. filed in support of application lor rcstoration of suit, the plaintill.s aVen'ed that when they cnquired rvitl'r thcir counsel I I ) L,\A. J (' tV.4.,Vo. I 68 oJ' 2 02 J about the stage of the case, they were i ormed that it takes time lor disposal ol- the suit and their presence i not required except at the tinie of evidence and assurcd them t at he would infbnl thern *hcnevcr their presencc is required. elieving the words of their counsel, the plaintifls did not appear pe onally belore the Couft and rvhen they have enquired through a kno person about the status of the casc, they came to know that the s it was transferred from the ('ourt ol- Il Additional I)istrict Judge to the Court of V Additionat District Judgc, Ilanga Reddy Districr at L. .Nagar, and was disrnissed lirr non-appealance ofplaintilfs. The pl ti113 averred that the factum ol'transf'er of their case Irom one Couft another was not infbnned bv their prcvious counsel and he acted ag inst their interest, tl-rer.etbr.e. thev har c entrusted the ntatter to a new c unsel. The plaintiffs finally averrcd that due to thc rristake and m leading by their previous counscl. thev cannol be put to loss as heir substantial righls ar.e in vo lvcd in the suit.

10. r\ close scrutiny of the entire record reveals that the rcasons put fblth by the plainriffs in both the applic tions, i.e., the restoralion application and thc application flled lbr co donation of delay in filin-e 6 LNA, .I {',t4,1 Akt 168 of 2021 I the restorati., apillication are one and the samc, cven in verbatim. The trial courr allo*ed thc apprication filed for cond.rarion of delay i.e., I.A.No 610 of 20t9. r,icle order dated 31.03.201:1. by observing that the en'or ou the parl of the courser is sufficient a,d good ground to condo,e thc delay and trre plaintiffs cannot be put to ross because of mistake on thc part of thei. counsel. It is relevant to .ote that thc said order has nol hecn challengccl and thus, has becorne f.inal. I I ' I-atcr, the trial court ,,vrrire adjudicating the apprication filed under Order IX RLrte 9 ol CpC. appreciated the very sarrc reasons as were putlorlh by the plaintifls in the condone dclrry application, however, disrlissed the said application by observing that the plaintiffs cann.t throw the cntire burden on their prcvious counser and blame hinr fb. not info.ning thc status of the case anci the courls are intended fbl diligcnt litigants rvho actively pursue thcrr cases and not for those who arc negligent in the legal proceedings and tl-rerelbre. the explanation givcn b-v the plaintifl's is not tenable. 12. The facts in the present case are very much alikc as that of the case in Dx,oriAo Prased (rteort) through LRs. Vs. pritttvi IIoj Singht. The facts of thc said case are that the suit was decreed cx parle by the I (2024) SCC Ontine Sr)eciat Court 3828 t I 1 LNA,.I C!t1,4.No.168 ctJ 2021 trial Courl in 1994 due to the non-appe ance of the appellant. The appellant, unawal'e of the proceedings, ater discovered the ex parte decree and fled a restoration applicati non 31.10. 1994, invoking Ordcr [X Rule l3 and Section l5l olthe CPC. l'he appellant clairned that his previous counsel had lailed to inform him about the proceedings. IIie Trial Coun allowed the restoration application, recognizing the appellant's illiteracy, g d taith, and the fact that hrs ignorancc u,as due to his previous counsel's negligence. Thc lcspondent challcnged the Trial Court's order in a revision petition belble the District Coutt, which reve the Trial Court's decision and the said decision was upheld by Alla abad High Court in the Writ Petition. IIorver.cr. the Supreme Courl Ilowed the appeal, set aside the orders of thc' High Court and the Di trict Court, and restored the -lrial Court's decision allowing the restot tion application.

13. ln the said judgment, the llon'b Suprerne Court referred to the ratio laid down in Rafiq v. Munshi al2, wherein it is held that a party should not sufler due to their cou sel's negligence, as litigants ofien lack knou,ledge of legal procedur s and rely entirely on their advocatcs, and held that the appellant s reliance on his previous ' rosr 1z; scc zss 8 LNA..I t )tlLt. No.168 of 2021 counsel, wh. had lailed to irfbr* hi,r about the procecclings, should not lead to his penalizatiou.

14. The.iudgrnent rcndcred hi. the IIon,ble Srrprcrnc Court in Dworiko Prustd's casc (citcd supra) is squarelv applicable to the present case I 5. In the instant case, rric praintirl.s pleaded tlrrrt thcy wer.e not informed about the transl-er ol- thcir suit fiorn the coufl wl-rere it is originallf instituted to arothe' Court and as suclr, bcir-rg ig,orar-rt of the same and fir(her, rcrving on tlrc r.vords or their cou,scr that he would i,form them.s and their p.esence is rcrluirecr, trrey were "r,lrcn rest assured that the suit proccedings are going on ancr that, orly after two years liom the datc ol- dis,tissal ol'the suit, thar too, through a known person the1, came to knorv about the disr-nissal of the suit. Imrnediately, on leamirg aboLrt the dismissal ol the strir, the plaintilfs have acted pr,,tptly and tllcd tr.r,o applications, i.c...nc application for setting aside thc disrnissal o'de' and restoration or'the suit. ancl another application for conclonation of delay in liling the said restoration application. 'l'hus, it can be said that the co.duct or' the t I I LNA,,I (:M4. No.468 of 2024 plaintiffs was in good faith For the gligencc and mistake of their previolrs counscl, the plaintills should ot be penalized

16. For the loregoing fcasons a d ir.r the ligtrt of the ratio dccitlencli of the Ilon'ble Supreme Co rt in Dwarika Prasad's case (cited supra), this Court holds that the inrpugned order passed by the trial Couft sull'crs lrorn illegality and irregularity and as such, the sar.ne is Iiable to be set aside

17. Accordingll, and also taking i to account the peculiar facts and circurnstances of the case. this ivil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- upees Ten thousand only) pa),able to the I-ligh Court Le_qal Servi cs Authority within period of 30 days lront the date of receipt of copy of this order and the irnpLrgned order is set asidc, and cons quently, IA.No. 186 of 2023 stands allowed

18. As a seclucl, pending n.riscella eous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COP d/ K. SRTNIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR To, 1 . The V Additional District & Session L.B.Nagar. (with records, if anY)

2. The High Court Legal Authority, Hydera 3. OneCC to Sri N/1. Rajender Reddy' Ad 4. One CC to Sri Suresh Bhaktula, Advoc 5. Two CD CoPies tl, ^W SECTION OFFICER Judge, nga Reddy District, at cate [OPUC] e [oPUC] HIGH COURT DATED:01 10712025 I I JUDGMENT CMA.No.468 of 2024 1l\E q f(.- +J i" 12 rug znffi c]( t) €.s, ,eF-\) ALLOWING THE CMA \l ,\-6