The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI HIMANGINI SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents: _ The Gourt made the following: JUDGMENT ,r^r IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CM MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 414 of 2o25 O1ST DECEMBER, 2025 Between: M/s. Pe:nchamukhi [ndustries, Hyderabad. ...Appellant The Gerreral Manager, Telangana State Finance Corporation, Hyderatrad and another. ANI) Respondents JUDGMENT: Hr:ard Sri I-limangini Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellar.t. Though notice served on the respondents, none appeare,l on behalf of the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 23.07;2025 passed in I.A. No. 1552 of 2024 in O.S. No. 434 of 2015 by the learned III Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, 'the Trial Court') wherein, the petit.on filed under order IX Rule 9 read with 151 of the cpc 2 RY,J cMA_414_2025 to restore the suit by setting aside the dismissal order dated

19.09.2024 has been dismissed:

3. The brief facts of the case are that the main suit in o.s. No. 434 of 2015 was filed by the appellant (plaintiff) against the respondents (defendants) seeking recovery of money of RS.46,48,257 /- with future interest at the rate of l2o/o per annum. The said suit was dismissed at the stage of trial, when P.w.1 has filed evidence in chief and the matter stood posted for marking of documents. At that stage on lg.og.2o24 at l2:lS p.ffi., the suit was dismissed for non appearance of the appellant and his counsel on record. on the sarne day, a petition was filed under order IX Rule 9 of the cpc to restore the suit. Notice was given to the respondents and they have endorsed no objection gnd no counter for setting aside the dismissal order and restoration of the suit. The Trial court dismissed the suit on the single ground of approaching the court with unclean hands. The appellant herein in the affidavit filed seeking restoration of suit stated that when he reached the court at L2:oo Noon, the suit was dismissed for default, whereas, the docket' order dated

19.09.2024 shows that the suit was dismissed at l2:ls p.ffi., due to non-appearance of the appeltant and his counsel on record. on account of variation of 15 minutes of time as per the i I I I l, $ ,.[ j 3 RY,J cMA_414_2025 affidurvit filed by the appellant and the docket order dated L9.O9.2024, tl;.e petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dism:.ssal of the petition, the present appeal is preferred.

4. In the grounds of the appeal, it is pleaded that the Trial Courr: failed to consider that the appellant was ill on the day when the matter was posted for marking of documents, that the suit ruas filed for recovery of money and in case, the suit is not restored, the purpose of filing the suit would be defeated and the respondents would enjoy unearned benefits taking advantage of the dt:cree.

5. During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that approximate time was mentioned as oat about 12:OO Noon" and the same is taken literally by the Trial Court to .arrive at a conclusion that the affidavit filed by the appellant contains falsehoods. It is emphasized that the appellant did reach the Court and by the time he reached the Court, the suit was dismissed. The restoration petition u,as filed on the same day. F'urther, notice was also given to the respondents on the same day and they have eridorsed no objection. When the petition came up for hearing on 11 .Ll.2o24also the respond.ents have reported no counter. [n the circumstances, learned. counsel 4 RY,J. cMA_4 14_2025 C] for the appellant argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the appeliant on

19.09.2024, which is the day of the dismissal of the suit, shows that the time "as around I2:OO Noon". Th.e"said paragraph is extracted and produced below: "I state that my counsel aduised me to attend tlrc Court os soon as possible and bg the time I came to the Court hall it was around 12.0O Noon and I cqme to knou that the case was dismissed for default." (Emphasis supplied)

7. That the word used "around l2:OO Noon" can be taken as a few minutes prior or few minutes after 12:OO'Noon while preparing the affidavit hurriedly to frle the petition for restoration of the suit. The exact time mentioned on the docket as to time of dismissal may have escaped the notice of the appellant. The short period of 15 minutes discrepancy is need not be held against the appellant as the appellant does not stand gain anything by indicating the time around l2:OO Noon instead of L2:LS p.m. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and that the appellant deserves to be given an opportunity to prosecute his case for recovery of money against the respondents. 5 RY,J cw_414_2025

8. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed setting aside the order dated 23.07.2Cl25 in I.A. No. 1552 of 2024 in O.S. No. 434 of 2015 on the file of learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The I.A. No. 1552 of 2024 is allowed and consequently, the suit in O.S. No.434 of 2O15 is restored to its original file. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- B. SATYAVATHI INT REGISTRAR / /ffRUE COPY// s N OFFICER P To,

1. The lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 2. One CC to Sri H 3. Two CD Copies imangini Sanghi, Advocate tOpUCI ABK \ HIGH COURT RY,J DATED: 01112-12025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.414 ctt 2025 .l,l,r-. a S 3 1 ,IAN 7q7f' * t, ALLOWING TI{E CMA WITHOUT COSTS ] i. :, E a I €