The High Court · 2025

*,llrurlt *#;1fgffi ;:3",,,,,,",;,"11[ 3i:, i il ]%#,,,,"..# Counset for the petitioner :SRt RAMESH BABU pEDApALLt Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,3,4,5 : SRI NARENDAR JAt, I The Court made the following: ORDER - IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITOIN NO.3099 of 2024 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 Between: Gopagani Srinivas Goud ... Pet rtioncr/ pctitioner/ de[endant No.I B S. Bhaskar (died) .rnd 26 others . . . Respondc n ts 7/ rc spo ndents / plaintiffs / defendants ORDER:

1. Hcard Mr. P. Rtrrnesh tsabu. lcarncd counsel for the petitioner/ d cfcndan t No. !B arncl Mr. Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for tl-re respondent Nc-rs.1l. 3, +, 5/piaintill Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and respondcnL No,22,.i cle lcrrdant No. I5. Perused the record.

2. T1-ris Civil Revision Pel-itior-r is Iilcd br- the petitioner/ defendant Nc. i8 aggrit:r'ctl l-,r' tlre or<lcr passed try the learned Senior Civil .Jtrrlge , W:,rrairgai. in t.A.No.zl03 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 ol 2O05, dated 08.C7.2024, r.r'hcreir.r, a petition filed under Order IX [?ule 7 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte order and to receive the rvrilten :jtatenrcill ol Lhe petitioner/ defendant 1'r-o.l U illeci otr iO.Ort.20')4. has i-;ccn disrnissed J 2

3. Thc respondent Nos.l to 7/plaintilf suit lor Spccific performancc ol coi i ii Jos 1 to 7 have liled .1 1ct oi serle clated

30.04. 1992 against the deferrclants ir-rclurlri :1 t 1'r rt pc:trtioner and respondent Nos.8 to 27 and to dclii,cr tlre l ) ssr':ssiolt of the suil schedule propcrt]' consistir-rg of Ac. I2. lir ( i s. ol lancl near Fort Warangal (trast) Shivaru in S1.. No.r-r l5/A. iu to time, on account of pendente lite truns sard suit, from Lirne i:r of' thc propei-t,\, several defcndants have becn addecl br. fil,r g in'rplead pctitionrs uncler Order I Rule 10 of CpC. As man-v a.s 21 Celen cian ts havr: been arra,\,ed as parties to the suit. lnitialh herc u'ere abor,rt I lri defendants and at thc latest. thcre are 21 clt in rla n ts on record. Each time, the defendants are impleadccl. t rl iLrc filir-rg rr,ritterr statement and the matter is going iracl< :r, tirc' initinl stager o.:- filing n ritten statement ancl lraming :rclcli, I ral isst,rr:s lbllou ecl b1' leading evidence ol tl,r e delcndan t s; rnri rec ailing the u'ilnesses ol PWl. In this instant casr:. tlrr sii.li is ol the vear

2005. The matter \rras once posteci lbr jlrcg r r cn t :l1t(l rcopcncd again on account of filing of in terlocul or .r a1-.plications and certain dcferrdanls coming on recL,l(1. lrr IIrr.: the matter u,as postecl lor argurments in .r mr: con text, r,i,l-rcn re \ ear 2021 , the .-present I.A is liled bl, the petitioncr/defencliur No 18. i t l 4 . The case of the petitioner herein is that he has no knowledge about the main suit lill he rcceirred notice in C.R.P. No.375 ol 2024 on 2?,.O'2.2Ct24. C)nlv thcn, the petrtloner learned about the suiL from the notice received from tl-ris Court and enquired the szrme through his cor-rnsel u'hen he \.\'ent to Warangal on 3I .03.2024. After making enquirl. after learning about the pendenc5' of Lhe sr-irl, the [ntcrlocutor.y application under rerrision along u,ith u'ritten statcinc t n,cre flled. This Interlocutorry application \\'als opposed b,r' tl-re respondents/ plaintiffs alleging tl-rat tl-re petitioncr hercin rcceived r-rotice and summons in the Interlocutor application zrs u'el[ as the suit and that he \rras l'eprescntcd bv a colrnsei N.V.R.R. But on account of failure to file cor-rnter. ihc petr tioner \\-as set cx parte in the I.A and the LA r.r,as dispc.rst:d ol. It is plcaded that there are no merils in thc petition lilccl and tlrert- th(' sarnc is liable to be di sm issed

5. Upon considerir-rg the plezrdrngs ot both thc parties and hearing both the counsels, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved b), thc same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed lnE {

6. In grounds of Revision, it is pleaded th:rt the impr-rgned I.A under revision i.e. LA_No.403 cl 2024 in 0 ii lJo.20 o1' 2005 is erroneousll'riisrnissed ttrough irctitlon filcci itr irc i'c s 1t c, r'r cle. n t Nos. l Lo 7 for impleading the petitioncr ers de for l rn t No. 18 $'as allrtri-ed zrnd r:onse qr-rent amendmertt \r i1s I . pleaded that as per Order VIII Rule 1 of (l 'r'nii,tcr.l. lr r s )C, a n-rit Ien statement has to be liled r.r,ithin .30 dairs lrom tlr,r Jatr: of scn,ir:c ol summons Lo l-rim, presenting his defence. A.s :lcr 1; rov iso. a maximum periocl of 120 days can be perrnittecl f . ,ir the dale of sen,ice of sumrnons for filing u'ritten statentcr i. Wh ile so, thc: dockct proceeclings of the suit do not shou, that I 'occss fee n as paicl lor servir-rg of summons aftcr the pe tit ionc r- , ';ls irn plc:rclecl as clefendant No. 18. Hou,ever, the 'lrial Court on I re l;:r sis of ar-r erroncolrs linding Lhat therc is failr.tre to file s.r-r alter reccipt of notice in rhe C.R.p.No.37 j clt stat[ct]i(j It I o1 ')O21 ori 2?,.O2.2024 has dismissed thc petiiion. As srr.. it is prr.Lr ecl that the C. R.P be allor,r,ed and an opportunit-r. 1;e : ven to rle lctr cl the suit b,r, setting asicle the ex-partc order lrr re ceir,ing thc \.ritten statemeltt of the revision petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for responclent i os.2, 3, + 5/'piaintiff Nos.2. 3. 4, 5 and respc.rnrJent \r. Z2/rlcterrrlanr No.15 relied upon the counter averments abollt serving notice ln the Interlocutory application an d the petitioner being represented bv an advocate Sri NVRR and thc pctitioner being sct ex-partc in the i.A. It is argued lhat the Trial Court has given reasoning tbr no[ consiclering the petitioll of the petitioner and bor-rafides of the petiti{]ner are not bclievable and that he indulged in sr.rppression of facts and therefore Lhere is no infirmit',,' in the order passed b.-r'the Trial Courl' Thc learr-red counsel for peritioner reiiecr' L'rpon judgment 8. ol the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case betuieen Kailash v. Nanhku and othersr, u'here in' it is l-reld as follor'vs t"irstll', a c:rreflti rcadLng ol Lhc l:rngutLgc lll " s,hich Order VIll, Rule 1 iras beetl clra ftccl' shot's t lrat it c.tsts an obligation on lhe dcfcnd'lnl to lilc the u'ritlen st:rte ment within 30 ciitYs frorn the clatc ol scrvice ol summons on him atlcl rvitllin thc exlct'rdcd tirnc lalling n'itl'rir-r 9O days. The provision docs not clctrl r'r illr thc p.ou,c-r of tl)c col-lil :rnci lilso cioes trot spc:cil-it;alh' tzlke au a-v the polver af t!rt: r:ourt to Lake thi rr-rittctr slzitemenL on rccord Lirough filed bevol]d ttrc [itnc as provicled for. Secondll', the nature ol thc provisi'rn containcd in Order r'rtll, tlule 1 is prc-rceclur:rl lt is not:r part of the subslantivc ias"I'hirdlv, lirc objcct bchil-rd subslituting Orclcr Vlli. Rulc 1 in t.hc prcsent shapc is tcr ' 2oo5 (5) scc 4Bo ;,-:,. .-,.-.:1.- - II 6 cllrb thc mist:hicf of unscr''-tPt-tirrus clclendzrnts a'l I -'trtrg dilatory lacti('s' rlelavttlg thc cllsposal of cases rll'r:lr ttl [l-rt' chaqril-l oi thC plainf i[[s 'rttii i" til;"r-Lrcrs ai]Drr)rl llilr1 [he coL.lrt tirr- cluick rcliel arld :rlso 1rl tl]c '' -ir)rl:' incottvt tlicnr:e o[ thc court f't(ic'l \vit.h lreclucnl I i l\":e rs 1[1 lr rrirr'-i for zrclj our-ntllt nt s 'I'hc objcct is L<> '-:xpccliie antl not to sclrttle thc same The process of iust l ' mzL'v be specdt:d i-tp zrncl httrriecl irut the fzrirncss ir ['i- r is '-r basic clcml:nt ot justice cannol be permittc'l ' bt: [l r: rie d. " As pr:r Orcler VtlI Rule 1 of CPC' a defendarL has to file g. the \\'rittcn stateinet-rt rn'ithin 30 da1's from the datc 'f st:rr'icc of sLlmnlol-ts. ltl thc instant case' it is argued that sr:i lrlolls were not served :rt al1 :rncl therefore there u'as no oc(lil 'ion {br the petitioner to file Lhe written stalement' Frtrthrr ' reltancc is placecl on the J ud gment of Hon'ble Supreme: Cciut - of inclizr irr thc c:rse of Raj Process Equipments and Systemr; Pvt' Ltd' v' Honest Derivatives Pvt' Ltd" in Civil APPeal No'8O89 of timeline Prt's'r ribed u t.r cle r 2O22. n'lrercin it is held that the proviso to slrb-rlrlc (1) Order VIII of CPC is manda.' ry that the principle of filing a \ rrltten cases filed unc[i l comlnercial strictly aPPlicable onlv to the courts, u'hcreas in a ctvil case filed before civil 6 r I t'Ls lhe trme period for liling s rit'.en slatement is -30 da1's' hot': 'er' said time statement u'itlr r 30 clavs is It is hclcl ' 'l t I 7 periocl car-i be extended up to 9O days subject to filing of a petition under Section 148 of CpC.

10. The facts rn thc present case shou. that tlie petitioner herein r,r.as sen,cd with notice in I.A.No.2g 1 of 201O. But in said petition, the petitioner rernained ex parte. This lactor alone cannot be taken into consideration for noL seltding summons in the main sr-rit. A part-lr $.ho is sought to bc impleadecl nta_r, not n'ant to appear in the Intcrlocutory appliczrtion in case he has no objection for gettir-rg impleaded in the suit. Horl,ever, it becomes in-rperative for ar part-v r,r,ho is implcaded to bc served u'ilh sumrnons in the main suit. In this contcxt, it is relevant to refer to Order I, Rule 1O(5) of CpC, u,hich is extractcd and produced l;elor,v: "Subjcct to [he provisions ol thc f lnclian Limitzrtrorr Act, 1877 (XV of 1E7 /)], section '22, thc procccclings :rs agarnsiI anv delcndant shzrll bc I hc scrvicc ol t].rc: clccmed to summons." person added havc begrrn onlv a1s I l. As per above pror.,rsion, the procceclings against anr,. person ad ded as a defendant sI-rall be deemed to have begun onlv on the service of the summonS. That being the case, merel-y notice in C.R P.No.374 of 2024 cannot bc a grouncl to compute the time period for filing u,ritten statement b1. taling 30 days \ into consideration' Et'eil iu casc' 30 d a-'--s timeline 'ras not met' the petition under Orr{er IX Rr-rle 9 :''long 1''i1l u'riti Il st'iternenl ruas filcd on l0.O-l '20?-1. u'hich is r'r'cll u'ithin he 90 clar s maximum time periocl sct unr]er Orc'ler VIII Rule I : - CPC In vics ol thr: tbr-egoing' r-his Court is of tl: considered 12 opinion that the leat-trecl Triai Cor-irt has commlt 1'' 1 211 sl1or in dismissing t-A.No.:]O'j ol 2024 u'ithoutt follot'ing t I : lirst step of serving ol- summotts on the impieaded defend: lt' t.he Trial Court assumecl lltrd presumcrl petitioner's knon'L: lgc abolrt the suit pending. On thc llasis of imagined intention rI protracttng the proceeclings. il':rj petitioner cannot be cleniecl ; I opportunitl' to contest the s'.rit. morLr so' I h':r-' rt is r'' l r respe ct [c) immovable propcit-\'anci rvhen thc petitioner clairl; to be a Lrona fide purchtlser

13. Coming r.o the aspect ol the lretitioner bc t g ar u'atchdog and delibe rarel-r- n aritit-tg ti!1 Lirc' matLer \li -r i pcislecl for arguments for the second time in the suit rr"'i t kL i n intention to revcrt the procecciings back to the inttial stage o rial of scttling issues, the said possibility cannot be ruled out llo*'r'cver' it is also possible thart thc petitioner has no knor'-'le ige abolrt tlLe proceeclir-rgs in the suit as summons l\.ere not st I i'ed in ttre suit- 2 9 on him. In the circumstances, since the suit is of the year 2O05, vr.hile giving an opportuni t1,' to the petitioner to file tl-re r'r'rittcn sLatcment, a direction can be given for him to cooperale s.ilh lhc trial and disposal of the suit u.ithout seel<ing adjournments

14. In tl-re result, the Cir.il Revision Petition is allor.n ed setting aside the impugned order passed brv the learned Scnior Civil ,Judge. Warargal, in I.A.No.403 ol 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2O05, dated Oa.O7.2024. Cor-isequently, I.A.No.403 of 2021 in O.S.No.20 of 2005 is allou ed. Thc petitioner is directed to co:operatc rvith the Trial coui't rt ithout seeking adjournmcnts Pending rrriscellaleous petitions, if any, shall stand closeci. No costs. SD/. T.SRINIVASAREDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, The Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, at Hanumakonda one cc to SRI RA[\/ESH BABU PEDAPALLI, Advocate [oPUC] One CC to SRI NARENDAR JALLI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:12112t2025 ORDER CRP.No.3099 of 2024 5 2 !, [tB ?[2[ q\ )-t * F:co I { ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS J lrl"l