The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS ANO '1. B.Satyamma, W/o. Narasimha Reddy, aged abciut 68 years, Occu: Agrl. R/o Dharur Village and Mandal, Vikarabad Dist.

2. B. Baby. Wo. Manik Reddy, aged about 48 years, Oc(x Village and Mandal, Vikarabad Dist. Agrl R/o. Dharur

3. G.Sulatha, Wo.Srinivasa Reddy, aged about 45 yea s Dharur Village Mandal, Vikarabad Dist. Occu Agrl. R/o

4. B.Savithri, Wo.Srinivasa Reddy, aged about 40 years. C (:u. Govt. Teacher, R/o. Dharur Village and Mandal, Vrkarabad Dist .RESPONt) :NTS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ,r rstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court " ay be pleased to grant stay of all further Proceedings in O.S.No.03/2015, on th,r file of the Court of the lX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at i. l.Nagar inctudrng passing of final decree in the above OS. pending disposal rt he above CIVIA in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri. Dr. P Bhaskar Mohan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Nallamasu Krishna The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLEJUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR C.M.A. No.54l of 2023 JUD GMENT: Heard Sri Dr.P.Bhaskar Mohan' learned counsel for the appellants and Ms.C.Jyotsna Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents' and perused the record.

2. The present CMA is filed assailing the order dated 02'08'2023 passed by the leamed IX Additional District Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in I.A.No' 151 of 2022 (Old I'A'No'359 of 2020) in O'S'No'3 of 2015, which is filed under Order tX Rule 13 CI'C and a consequential direction to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 30' l I '2017'

3. The appellants herein and the petitioners in I'A' are defendants in the suit filed by the respondents/ptaintiffs for partition and separate possession ofthe suit schedule properties'

4. The facts leading to the fiting of I A'No' l5l of 2022 are that during pendency of suit O.S.No'3 of 2015, as the appellants herein lailed to appear before the Court despite being served with summons through appellant No.l, they were set ex-parte on 04'06'2015 ' On 22'07 '2015' P.W.l was partly examined and Exs'A-l to A-7 were marked' On t/ )) 2

14.10.2015 P.W.l was further examined in chief anc Exs.A_g and A_9 were marked' on 13. l r.20r 5, chief affidavits of p. w r. r anrl J were filed. P.W.2 was furlher examin ed. on 29.12.201 5. p.W.i rr:r ; fir1hcr examined on 09. I I .201 6, and later after hearing argumer r ,, judgment was pronounced on 30. ll.2Ol7. Subsequently, the appellarrr ; filed I.A.No.859 of 2018 under Order XXVI Rule 13 CpC, which ,v rs renurnbered as I'A No 26g of 2022 and another I.A.No-g60 0f 20 18 ur r er order XX Rure I8 CPC, which was renumbered as I.A.No.l52 of.2() t2. I.A.No.l5l of 2022 was filed to set aside the ex_parte decree dated 30. | 2017. 5. The leamed Trial Court held that LA.No. l5l of :.022 rvas filed on 16-09.2020 i.e., after 3 years of passing of decree on.l ) 1r.2017, and that the 6nly reason shown in the affidavit is that respon i :r.rt No.l used to reside i, Tirumalapur village and that the other responr ( ..1ts were residing in other places' 'i'he leamed Trial court further herd th r the addresses of the respondents as shown in the I.As. as we, as in the pr int are same and that no documents were filed by the respondents to s r rw rhat they are residing at differ.ent places. Therefore, the learned Tr r I Court came to conclusion that it cannot be said that no summons wr:r: ser,red on the \ \ J appellants/petitioners/defendants in the suit, and thereby dismissed the application, which is filed under Order lX Rule 13 CPC-

6. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed'

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants / defendants were set ex-parte and decree was passed on l0'11'2017, and that after the death of appetlant No.l on 22.01 .2017 and only after receiving summons in I.A.Nos.859 and 860 of 2018, the appellants came to know about passing of ex-parte decree, and thereafter the appellants filed the I.A. seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree.

8. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 herein filed counter in I.A.No.151 of 2022 (Old I.A. No.359 of 2020) on 23 '06'2023 before the leamed Trial Court stating that the respondents/plaintiffs reiterated that the decision to suo motu allow the petition and proceed with the trial does not, either explicitly or implicitly, admit the allegations made against the petitioners/defendants regarding the non-receipt of notice' The sole intention behind allowing the present petition was to enable the case to be contested on its merits, rather than being dismissed on procedural technicalities. 4 l

9. Leamed counsel for the respondents fairly reitera l, s the same stating that respondents/plaintiffs are willing to cooperate with tre h'ial and decide the issue on rnerits duty allording reasonable opportuni I to both sides

10. -fherefore, tliis Court is of the opinion that the I amed Trial Court ougl'rt to have examined the contentions raised in the cct rter-affidavit filed on bchall of rcspondcnts/plaintiflfs and proceedi'r u,ith aflbrding reasonable opportunity to the petitioners in the lA. I l. Thus, this (lourt deems it appropriate to set rLr ide the impugned order dated 02.08.2.023 passed by the learned trial (lorr t in I.A.No.15l of 2022 (Old I.A. No.359 of 2020) the file of the lX tdditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in O.S.No., rl20l5 along with ex partejudgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 and t) S.No.3 of 2015 is restored to the file of the said Court.

12. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the t ial in O.S.No.3 of 20 I 5 on rnerits and make an endeavour to dispo s ' ol- the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of : ix (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5

13. Subject to above observation and direotion, the C'M'A'No'541 of 2023 is allowed.

14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 The IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.(with Records) Qne CC to SRl. P BHASKARA MOHAN, Advocate IOpUC] One CC to SRl. NALLAMASU KRtSHNA, nOvocate iOCUCI Two CD Copies

2. 3 4. Pr/PSL I I HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ) JUDGMENT CMA.No.S41 of 2023 /-"1!i,\.\,, i\ (- () i:-) *' .. u tt,'li U rl B,r\ /ucJ }' ::) c! ALLOWING THE CMA