Dismissed

Yarru Pavani v. Yarru Subba Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Nov 2021CRP/469/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition assailing the trial court's order issuing notice to the respondent in a set-aside application for a default decree. The Court held that while Order IX Rule 4 does not explicitly mandate notice, the trial court's discretion to issue notice, aligned with the Family Courts Act's objective to unite parties and promote justice, was well-exercicioed and

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Yarru Pavani Vs Yarru Subba Rao — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.469 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶4

Heard Sri Ravi Teja Dommeti, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶5

Assailing the order dated 25.03.2021 passed in I.A.No.252 of 2021 in F.C.O.P.No.136 of 2020 on the file of the Family Courtcum-XII Additional District Court, Guntur District, Guntur, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶6

As seen from the record, originally the petition filed by the petitioner-wife was dismissed for default as there was no representation to adduce ex parte evidence on 05.02.2021. About three weeks later, the present application came to be filed under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to set aside the default order dated 05.02.2021.

¶7

An objection was raised that notice need not be issued to the respondent and there was no obligation on the part of the Court to issue notice to the respondent in view of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Babu Vs. L.Dewan Singh and Others¹ In other words, the learned counsel would submit that under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. there is a mandate to order notice to the respondent for passing any order and no such requirement is there under Order IX Rule 4 C.P.C.

¶8

1 AIR 1952 AII 749

¶9

¶10

After considering the argument in detail, the trial Court issued notice to the respondent, which is sought to be challenged in this civil revision petition.

¶11

As seen from the order, the trial Court categorically held that there is no bar to issue notice to the respondent in a petition to set aside the default order. The Court exercised its discretion while issuing notice to the respondent. The reason appears to be that the object of the Family Courts Act is to unite the parties as practicable as possible by making all efforts. Taking into consideration the functioning of Courts and the object of the Family Courts Act, the trial Court found that it is a case where notice is required to be issued to the respondent. We feel that discretion exercised by the trial Court requires no interference, as it promotes the cause of justice and no prejudice is shown by issuance of said notice.

¶12