M/s. Narne Estates Private Linr!1ed. . A company registered rrnder v. '1. lVlanchala Lakshmamma

Petition under Ru!e 32 of CPC praying that in the circun-:stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit me to prosecLrte the case on behaif of the petitioner coinpany in the interest of justice lA NO: 2 AF 2025 Petition under Rule 33 of cPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit I\4 r PS Nagesh, authorized vide board resolution dated 17103/2025 to prosecute the case on behalf of the Petitioner in the interest of lustice fA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Ccurt may be pleased to reopen the present cRP for the purpose of receiving the additional documents, which are jusi and necessary for the adjudication of the above cRp, in the interest lA NO: 4 OF 2A25 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the cir-cumstances stated rn the affidavit fiied in support of the petiti,;n, the High Court rnay be pleased to receive the additionai documents enclosecl as per list on record otherwise the Fetitioner would be pul to irreparable loss and hardship . Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. B. RAVEENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 &2 : SRi K. JAGADISHWAR REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA. RANI CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION No.3385 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Rcvision Petition is fited by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.:1023 passed in I.A.No.263 of 2023 in O.S.No.l2 of 2011 by the leamed I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District, in allowing the petiti,.rn liled by the respondents 7 and 2 defendants 14 and 15 under Section 5 ol'the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 1775 days in filing the petition for sctting aside the decree passed against them

2. tleard Sri B.Raveendra Babu, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri K..lagadishu,ar Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondents,

3. [-eamed counsel fbr the petitioner submitted that the petitioner - plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement in respect of the suit schedule properrr- situated at Rahimkhanguda Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir Drstrict in the year 2011 against 29 defbndants. The respondenls I and 2 dclendants 14 and 15 were set ex-parte on 29.04.2011 The service of summons on the delendants itself took place a krng time. The decree was passed on 10.07.2018. The respondents I and 2 were also put to , 2 Dr.GRR, J crp_3385_2023 notice vide I.A.No.575 of 20ll in O.S.No.12 of 201 I during the pendency of the suit proceedings. Subsequent to the passing of the judgment and decree in their favor, E.P.No.343 of 2020 was filed. In the F,p also summons were served on the respondents 1 and 2. But they chose to remain ex_parte. The respondents I and,2 filed the petition to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree with an inordinate delay of 1775 days on 19.06.2023. The triar court failed to consider that no sufficient cause was shown by the respondents 1 and 2 in their affidavit to condone the delay of 1775 days. The trial court without considering the aspect of service of suit summons on respondents 1 and 2, allowed the application. The respondents having knowledge of all the proceedings and watching the proceedings had filed the petition at the time of linal execution only to deprive the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of the decree. The trial court inadvertentry numbered the application under order IX Rule l3 of cPC without disposal of the application fired under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and prayed to set aside the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Ieamed I Additional District Judge, yadadri Bhongir District in I.A.No.263 of 2023 in O.S.No.12 of 2011.

4. Leamed counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that respondents 7 and 2 had not received any suflrmons from the court and they came to know about the factum of iirss-ing of the decree only on 1g.06.2023 when the revision petitioner plaintiff trespassed into their patta land stating - 3 Dr.GRR, J crp_3385_2023 that they obtained the decree and filed E.P.No.343 of 2020 and also filed E.A.No.27 of 2023 and that the Court granted ad interim injunction in their favor restraining the respondents I and 2 from altering or claiming the nature of the EP schedule property or creating third party rights by way of alienation. The respondents I and 2 were not served with summons in the main suit or notices in the EP at any point of time. The suit was initially filed in Nalgonda, subsequently it was transferred to Bhongir, but no notice was issued after its transfer to Bhongir. The substantial rights of the parties were involved in the suit and the suil could be decided on merits. The trial court on considering all these aspects allo,a,ed the petition. There was no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court to set aside the same and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

4.1- Leamed counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of High Court of Madras in Dayanandhini v. K.Malal on the aspect that when the parties were not having any knowledge about the transfer of the Civil Suit from one Court to another. they might not be aware of the date ofhearing. In such a situation, they could not file the application only from the date of knowledge of the decree and gave a direction to all the Civil Courts with instructions to issue notices to the parties on transfer of the suit, on account of constitution of new '(2019) SCC Online Madras 19869 4 Dr.GRR, J crp_3385_2 023 coufts, bifurcation of-rurisdiction, transfer of cases due to change in pecuniary jurisdiction or even due to work load, wherever it was necessary. 5' Leamed counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the additional district court was established on 02.06.2022, but the respondents I and 2 were set ex-parte in the year 201 1. The respondents 1 and 2 hadnot preaded in their affidavit that no notice was issued to them after transfer of the case to Bhongir. After a long drawn process of service of summons on each of the defendants in the suit as wcll as in the I.A.s filed in it, the decree could be passed only on 10 07'2018' The respondents r and 2 having knowledge of the suit proceedings and the EP proceedings waited to file the petition till 2023. No reasons were given by the triar court in a,owing the petition and prayed to arow the civil Revision Petition.

6. Considering that the respondents I and 2 were set ex_parte in the year 2011 itself in the suit and the bifurcation of the districts was in the year 2022 and the EP was transferred subsequently and notice in the Ep proceedings were also received by respondents 1 and 2 by o4.o2.202r itsel'and as they had also not pleaded the said fact in their affidavit in the petition filed in I.A.No .263 of 2023 in o'S'No'12 of 2012r, this court considers that the transfer of the case from one district to another was no1. having any impact on respondents 1 and 2 --------------..........- 5 Dr.GRR, J rp_3385 2023 in the facts and circumstances of this case. As such, the above judgment could not be applied to their benefit.

7. As seen from the affidavit filed by the respondent No'2 - defendant No.l5 in I.A.No.263 0f 2023, he stated that he and the defendant No.14 were not served with any summons from the court or notices in the EP at any polnt of time. Leamed counsel for the revision petitioner contended that as per the docket proceedings of the suit dated 29.04.201 1, summons were served on defendants 1, 3 to 24. they were called absent and as such they were set ex- parte. He further statcd that the respondents I and 2 were also put to notice in I.A.No.575 of 2011 in O.S.No.12 of 2011 during the pendency of the suit proceedings and in Ir.P.No.3$ of 2020 also notices were served on J.Drs.1 to 24, as per the docket proceedings of the E-P. dated 04.02-2021 ard as there is no representation on their behall they were set ex-parte. The trial court in the impugned order datcd 11.09.2023 had not discussed whether summons were served on the respondents I and 2 or not in the suit as well as in the EP. Except referring to the citations and the principles mentioned in them, the facts as contended by the petitioner and respondents in the said petition are not deliberated by the leamed Judge.

8. It was also contended by the leamed counsel for the petitioner that the addresses of the respondents 1 and 2 in the petition in I.A.No.263 of 2023 and 6 Dr.GR& J crp_3385_2 023 the addresses mentioned by the plaintiffof defendants 14 and 15 in the suit and respondents 14 and I 5 in the EP were one and the same, as such, they were not entitled to say that there was no such service of summons upon them. The said aspects, which were part of the record, were not considered by the court below. No proper explanation was given by the respondents I and 2 for condoning the inordinate delay of 1775 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.

9. 'Ihe llon'ble Apex Court in Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer2, held that: "12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the stalute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an cvil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive iactor to be considered while interpreting a statute.

13. The Statute ol Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim b€ing secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It secks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainEblpand have from lapse of time become stale." , AIR 20 I4 SC 746 1 Dr.GRR, J crp_3385_2023

10. As the respor.rdents I and 2 failed to show that they were diligent enough in prosecuting the tnatter and had not given adequate and justifiable reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 1775 days in approaching the court to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against them and as they filed the petition at the fag end of the EP proceedings, it appears to have been filpd with an intention to drag the matter ancl to deprive the decree holder to enjoy the fruits ofthe decree. Hence, it is considered fit to set aside the order dated 11.09.2023 passed in I.A.No.263 of 2023 in o.S.No. 1 2 of 20 I 1 by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District.

11. In the result. the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated11.09.2023passcdinI.A.No.263of2023ino.S.No.12of2011bythe leamed I Additional District & sessions Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District. No order as to costs As a sequel. miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed c,ni- P PADMAiTIABHA REDDY DEPU-'Y REGISTRAR iiTRUE COPY' ECTION OFFTCER The I Addi tional District & Sessions Judge, Yada To 1. 2. One CC to SRI. B. RAVEE NDR.A. BABU Advocate loPUCl 3. One CG to SRI' 4. Two CD CoPies K. J.AGADISI-IWAR REDDY Advocate IOPUC] Bhongir District \1-- PSL HIGH COURT DATED:26/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.3385 of 2A23 ) -i hE Sr4 ,.; .'-r$ I ) 02 !!n'/ ffi o * o Pa ' r:ttEI t ,{LLO\\Irl-(; TI{E (ll\/tl. ItHVISION }.'I1'l i l(}N (. .49"4 tr{,