The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.K.PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No.4 M.VENKAT DIVAKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:..- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JTJSTICE RENUKA YARA Cl\,'lt, REVISION PETITION No.3393 of 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri N[ K. Prakash, learned counsel tbr the revision petitoner and Sri M. Venlat I)ivakar, leamed counsel lor respondent No.4. perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Flevision Pctition is dirccted against the order dated

18.06.2024 in I.A.lrlr.223 of 2024 in O.S.No.5li of 2015 on the file of rhe III Additional Senior Civil Judgc, Ranga Reddy l)istrict at L.B.Nagar, wherein the petit.ic,, filed under Order lX l{ule 7 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a plav€,r to set aside thc order dated 13.03.201g. has been dismissed.

3. lt is the case of the revision petitioner/def'endant No.l that respondent No.1/pla.intiff filed suit lor cancellation of sale deed in o.S.No.513 of 201i; r,urd after receiving surrmons his counser filed vakalath and the suit was .orrring for tiling ol- r,r,ritten statelnent. Due to non-filing of the written stallment, the revision petitioner was set ex parte on

17.08.2016. lmmedi.ately, a petirion rvas filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 ol'c.P.C. vzde I.A.No.gg7 of 2016 in the said suit with a prayer to grant pcrrnission to file rvritten statement by setting aside the order dated I7.08.2316. T'hc said appiicarion was allowed by order dated \ "-1 \l RY,J cRP 3391 2024 -

10.08.2017 subject to paymcnt of costs of Rs.500/-. The revision petitioner paid the costs, but written statement was not filed from the date of said order i.e., 10.08.2017 till t3.0i.2018. On 13.03.2018, the right of the revision petitioner to lile written statement was forfeited and he was again set ex parte and the suit was posted to 15.11.2018. The revision petitioner pleaded betbre the trial Court that he does not know about the suit proceedings till 12.08.202i and rnadc his appearance through his present counsel. Accordingly, the application was under revision i.e., I.A.No.223 of 2024 was filed under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. to set aside the order dated 13.03.20 16.

4. Respondent No.l herein/plaintiff opposed the said application before the trial Court referring to seruice of' summons on the revision petitioner, his appearance through counsel, f'ailure to file written statement leading to passing oforder setting him ex porte and also subsequent filing of petition in I.A.No.887 of 2016, allowing of the said application vide ordet dated

10.08.2017. Respondent No. I herein contended before the trial Court that in spite of giving an opporlunity, the revision petitioner though paid costs, did not file written staternent. Thereafter, after a lapse of eight years, the I.A. under revision was flted to set aside the order dated 13.03.2018. It is 2 RY,J cRP i39l 2024 alleged that revisron petitioner is abusing the Court process and therefore, opposed I.A.No.22:i of 2024

5. The trial Cour[ after hearing argumcnts of both the leamed counsel and having perusecl the docket proceedings disrnissed thc I.A.No.223 of 2024 leading to filirrg, of the present revision petition

6. In the grouncls ol revision, it is alleged that the trial Court failed to consider that dur: 1o the death of his previous counsel there was no inlormation about the case status and therefbre, the le" ision petitioner could not file writtr:n statement. Further, along with petition to set aside the order dated l-).03.2018, written statement was also tlled, but the same is not considered b1, the trial Couft. The rnerits ol the case of the revision petitioner statcd in the grounds of thc prcsent rer ision petition are not necessary for disposal of the present C.R.P. and therefbre, not reiterated. 'Ihe allegation of fi'aud is made against lespondent No. [ lrereirVplaintiff. On these grounds, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order dated

18.06.2024 and allor.v the I.A.No.223 of 2024 by setting aside the order dated 13.03.2018 pa:ised by the trial Courl

7. During arguntents in the present revision, learned counsel fbr the revision petitioner (lontended that the I.A. under revision is filed to set RY..I cRP 3i9i 2024 \ aside the order setting the revision petitioner ex parte and permit him to file written statement, which was already filed along with the I-A. under revision. It is argued that the rcvision petitioner would suffer irreparable loss in case an opportunity is not given to him to contest the suit on merits. The sale deed executed in favour olthe revision petitioner was sought to be cancelled and therefore, there is need to bring him on record. Hence, prayed to allow the present rer ision.

8. Learned counsel fbr other sidc argued that sufficient opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to delend his case, but the same was not availed by him and therefore. opposed granting of any relief. g. A perusal ofthe record shows that the revision petitioner was served with summons in the suit and he l-rad made appearance through his counsel way back in the year 2016. -lhereafter, there is lailure to file the written statement and therefore, he was set ex parte on 17.08.2016. Then, I.A.No.886 of 2016 was filed and the sarne was allowed on 10.08.2017 subject to payment of costs. At that -luncture, the revision petitioner had paid the costs only, but did not file the written statement upto 15.11.2018' Due to failure of fiting written statement right to file the same was forfeited on t 3.03 .20 1 8, he was sel ex parte and thc matter stood posted to

15.11.2018. 4 -' RY..I ('RP ligi 2024 I 0. Learned c,.ru nsel fbr the revision petitioner contended that the previous counsel orL record on one hand did nol infonn thc revision petitioner about the suit proceedings and other hand rvould contend that the said counsel d ied dr,rring Covid- I 9 in the year 2022 ancl thereafter, the revision petitioner did not have an occasion to file written statemcnt due to lack of knowledg,: about the suit proceedings I l. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the revision petitioner had an opportunity to file 'written statement after receiving summons in thc suit and also after the I.A.No.886 of 2016 was allowed on 10.08.10 t 7. From the year 2017 u1t to the year 2022 i.e., until the death ol lris counsel, nothing prevented t.he revision petitioner from appearing in the suit to defend himself. Wlten the entire suit proceedings came to an end and the suit was at the ster're of evidence of defendants belated[1', tl-re revision petitioner hled the LA. under revision seeking permission to file u'ritten statement. Such cc,nduct smacks of mala fides to protract thc proceedings and to bring the suit proceedings to square one i.e., to settle the issues again on the basis ol the written statement of the revision petitioncr fbllowed by recalling of witnesses, examining them and giving oppor-tunity to the revision petitioner r:,: lead his evidence. This entire process sets back the entire suit proceedirLl3s back to the year 20 16 to the imurensc pre.iudice of , 5 I I RY,J cRP 1393 2024 't \ the other parties, who were diligently prosecuting the case from the year 2015 till the year 2025. Inthe said circumstances, this Court sees no merits in the revision petition and there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 18.06.2024 in I.A.No.223 of 2024 in O.S.No.5l3 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court. There shall be no order as costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed SD/- K.AMMAJI DEP TY REGIST //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, lThelllAdditionalseniorCivilJudge,RangareddyDistrictL.B.Nagar i o.Lcci" sri N.K.Prakash, Advocate [oPUC]- - 5. 5; 6d i6 sri rvr.v"nkat Divakar, Advo-cate IoPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies NVBiPSL HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 ORDER CRP.No.3393 of 2024 .tA. ,.,'.s '-d. i. ! I \' 0I i[I :nr DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION Iro la{ 1