Allowed

Smt. Vale Indu Priya, v. Vale Praveen

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Aug 2019CRP/7768/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court's dismissal of a petition to condone delay in filing a suit to set aside an ex parte decree, holding that the petitioner needed an opportunity to be heard on merits given valuable rights involved, despite lack of documentary proof of residence.

What did the court decide?

The order under revision is set aside and the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree is condoned.

Smt. Vale Indu Priya, Vs Vale Praveen — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 7768 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred assailing the order dated 22.10.2018 by virtue of which the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, dismissed I.A.No.468 of 2017 in HMOP No.179 of 2014 filed by the petitionerwife under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 733 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 18.02.2015. The lower Court by considering that no sufficient reason was mentioned in the affidavit, dismissed the petition.

¶5

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent despite service of notice.

¶6

A perusal of the order of the lower Court would show that the Court dismissed the petition considering that no document was filed to prove that the petitioner is residing in the premises bearing Door No.4-191/51/1, at Nizampet village, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. In fact notice sent to the petitioner is returned, with postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’. A perusal of the petition would show that the petitioner contended that the respondent managed the postal authorities and got the notice returned with postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’. She specifically pleaded in the affidavit that she is residing in House No.4-191/50, but not in House No.4-191/51/1 as shown by the respondent in the main petition.

¶7

Though no documentary proof is filed, this Court opines that an opportunity is to be given to the petitioner to get the case decided on merits, as valuable rights of the petitioner-wife are involved. Hence, in view of the above, the order under revision is liable to be set aside.

¶8

¶9

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 18.2.2015 is condoned.

¶10

Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶11

----------------------SMT T. RAJANI,J

¶12

DATED 2^nd August, 2019 Msnrx

Smt. Vale Indu Priya, v. Vale Praveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vale Indu Priya, v. Vale Praveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gotivada Yesumery Karuna Kumari / Mery / Kavya Vs Gotivada Krishna

Potturi Sivanageswara Rao Vs Kamisetty Chennakesavulu

Y.Panduranga Rao Vs Cheetirala Naga Saraswathi

K. Srinivas Choudhary Vs V.M. Thippe Swamy

Karedla Parthasaradhi Vs Gangula Ramanamma (Died) and 5 Others

Bokka Satya Kumari Vs Siddani Surya nagamma