The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing defendants to file a written statement after default. The Court held that the lower court rightly considered the affidavit explaining delay and material evidence, ensuring the audi alteram partem principle was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
;; AMARAVATI COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH - TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRlt TUESDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR present
n
:u
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA the HON’BLE SRI CIVIL III i<|-iinti rriiir-' of2023
of India, aggrieved by the Petition ,nder Article 227 of the Corrstitution order dated 07 11.2022, passed in I.A. No. 387 of 2022 in O. . III Additional Junior Civil Judge cum 2020 on the file of the Court of the St Special Judicial 1 Class Magistrate (Excise Court) at Vizianagaram.
Between:
Hindu, Aged about 54 years. Yenni Satyanarayana, S/o. late Chittiah Town and District. Peddaveedhi, V.T. Agraharam, Vizianagaram residing at ...petitioner
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 340 of2020Onthe file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil judge cum Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise) Court, at Vizianagaram, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner:M/s. P. SARASWATHI
Counsel for the Respondents No.3,4,6 to 9: SRI.G. SAINARAYANARAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT.
Counsel for the Respondent:
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010555552023
mi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
13329]
TUESDAY .THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2855/2023
Between:
Yenni Satyanarayana
...PETITIONER
AND
Korda Narayana and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.PSARASWATHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.G SAI NARAYANA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT.
2.G SAI NARAYANA RAO
3.G SAI NARAYANA RAO
4.G SAI NARAYANA RAO
5.G SAI NARAYANA RAO
6.G SAI NARAYANA RAO
7.G SAI NARAYANA RAO
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present revision petition is filed aggrieved bytheorder dated 07.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.387 of 2022 in O.S.No.340 of 2020 on the file of the court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Special Judicial 1 Class Magistrate (Excise Court) at Vizianagaram.
- Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4. 6 to 9.
- Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 07.11.2022 is passed without assigning any valid reasons and simply allowing the application filed under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C is contrary to the law. She further submits that the respondents/ defendants in the Suit filed written statement without complying the orders of the court below dated 07.11.2022 and also not paid the costs as directed by the court below. She further submits that the court below erroneously allowed the application filed under Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. Even in the absence of any reasonable ground and material evidence, further the said application is not annexed with
3
the written statement. But allowing the said application is contrary to the settled law as held by this Court. She furthersubmitsthat even after filing extension petition for filing written statement, the defendants/ respondents did not choose to file writtenstatement for a period of two (02) years. But without considering such delay and intention of the defendants, allowing the present application is contrary to the object of Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. In view of the fact as stated above, the impugnedorders dated 07.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.387 of 2022 in O.S.No.340of 2020 are liable to be set aside.
- For better understanding Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. is extracted hereunder:
“Procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance:- Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex-parte, and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance. ”
4
- On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the 3'^^ defendant herein filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. explaining the due reasons for the delay in filing the written statement. He further submits that along with the application, the defendants also filed written statement and the same was also served upon the petitioner / plaintiff therein on 06.11.2022 and the same was filed before the Court on 07.11.2022
5
accompanying affidavit filed along with Order IX Rule7petition, the court below rightly allowed the petition filedunderOrder IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. for better adjudication of the suit. Therefore, the impugned order does not requires any interference of this Court.
- Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counselforthe respondents and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the impugned order dated 07.11.2022 was passedbythe Court below after considering the due reasons as stated in the accompanying affidavit in I.A.No.387 of 2022 and also after satisfaction of the facts and circumstances and legalentitlement of the petitioner as explained in the application/petitionunder Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. While allowing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. , the court below also observed the object of the said order. It is further observed that accompanying affidavit is filed explaining the delay and material evidence was also filed substantiatingthe cause for delay.
6
- Having satisfied with the due reasons as well as the material evidence filed before the Court below, the Court below rightly passed an impugned order dated 07.11.2022 allowing Order IX Rule 7 application to achieve the object of the petition as well as to meet the ends of justice. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents/ defendants did not file the written statement within the time and not duly explained the reasons for such delay even after filing of petitions for extension of time for filing written statement before the court below and finally right to file written statement is forfeited and respondents were set ex-parte. But filing of application/ petition under Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to set aside the ex-parte orders of the Court below is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same cannot be accepted in view of the due reasons and material evidence placed before the court below by the respondents/ defendants and also in view of the object of the Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. While considering the application under Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., the court below came to conclusion that the object of principle that audi alteram partem i.e., providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned for better adjudication of the lis pending
\
7
before the court. Therefore, it is appropriate and to meet the ends of justice, the court below rightly allowed the application Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C.
- In view of the reasons stated above, the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
- Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingshall
stand closed.
SDI- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
\
To,
nm
HIGH COURT DATED:23/04/2024
ORDER
CRP.No.2855 of 2023
'r; e
3i ^<Sb 5*
> ‘•7
i5>
<. 2
DISMISSING THE CRP
m
.s
V
<br><
y
v/<;
y •< :.'
■V
/
<br><br>
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court correctly allowed the application under Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 CPC to set aside ex-parte proceedings?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Yenni Satyanarayana
Korda Narayana
Latchapanna
Pathivada Lakshmana Rao
Pathivada Lakshmi
Thallapudi Devi
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
