Dismissed

S Ravi v. D Nirup Kumar

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Jul 2024CRP/539/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed two connected civil revision petitions challenging a trial court's refusal to condone a substantial delay in restoring a suit. The High Court held the petitioner failed to prove non-service of summons and found no ground to interfere with the lower courts' orders regarding execution and condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed; the orders of the lower courts were not interfered with.

S Ravi Vs D Nirup Kumar — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

QL
O Vv m

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 539 & 738 OF 2024

¶7

CRP No. 539 of 2024

¶8

Petition under Section 115 of cpc being aggrieved by^thedocket order dated 22.01.2024 passed in E.P.No.5 of 2017 in O.S.No.372 of 2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

¶9

Between:

¶10

S. Ravi, S/o. V. Sundaram Chetty, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No. 14-856, Palmaner Road, Chittoor Town and District.

¶11

...PETITIONER/JDR/DEFENDANT

¶12

AND

¶13

D. Nirup Kumar, S/o. V. D. Jayaraj, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o.D.No. 15-2448, Johns Garden, Palamaner Road, Chottoor Town, Chittoor District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/DHR/PLAINTIFF

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceeding in pursuance of order dated 22.01.2024 passed in E.P.No.5 of 2017 in O.S.No.372 of 2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M K RAJ KUMAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. DILIP NAIK

¶19

CRP NO: 738 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under section 115 of cpc aggrieved by the docket order dated 26.02.2024 2023 in O.S.No.372 of 2014 passed in I.A.No.295 of on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),^Chittoor.

¶21

Between:

¶22

S. Ravi, S/o. V. Sundaram Chetty, Aged about 53 years,^{Occ.Business,R/o.} D.No. 14-856, Palmaner Road, Chittoor Town and District.

¶23

...PETITIONER/JDR/DEFENDANT

¶24

AND

¶25

D. Nirup Kumar, S/o. V. D. Jayaraj, Aged about 52 years,^Occ. Business, R/o.D.No. 15-2448, Johns Garden, Palamaner Road, Chottoor Town, Chittoor District.

¶26

...RESPONDENT/DHR/PLAINTIFF

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceeding in I.A.No.295 of 2023 in O.S.No.372 of 2014 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor, dated 26.02.2024 pending disposal of above^CRP.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M K RAJ KUMAR

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. DILIP NAIK

¶31

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

¶32

APHC010090342024

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶34

[3206]

¶35

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶38

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 539/2024

Between;

S Ravi

...PETITIONER

AND

D Nirup Kumar

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶46

1.M K RAJ KUMAR

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶48

1.K. DILIP NAIK

¶49

¶50

RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.539 & 738 of2024

[3206]

APHC010159112024

SES cv

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶56

AT AMARAVATI

¶57

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶58

FRIDAY. THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶59

PRESENT

¶60

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶61

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 738/2024

Between:

S.ravi

...PETITIONER

AND

D Nirup Kumar

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶69

1.M K RAJ KUMAR

¶70

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶71

1.K. DILIP NAIK

¶72

The Court made the following common order:

¶73

As both the Civil Revision Petitions are complimentary^andrelateto the same parties and same issues, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

¶74

The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.372 of 2014 before the Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, for recovery of money

¶75

¶76

RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.539 & 738 of2024

¶77

given under a pro note. The petitioner was set ex-parte in the suit on 02.09.2014. Thereafter, the suit was decreed on 19.09.2014.

¶78

After the suit had been decreed, the respondent had filed O.E.P.No.5 of 2017 in O.S.No.372 of 2014. The house of the petitioner was brought to sale under this execution petition. At that stage, the petitioner moved the Trial Court for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 19.09.2014 along with I.A.No.295 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 3252 days in filing the petition to restore the suit. This application was dismissed on 26.02.2024.

¶79

Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner^has moved Civil Revision Petition No.738 of 2024.

¶80

Apart from this, the petitioner had earlier moved C.R.P.No.539 of 2024, on the ground that the Executing Court was seeking to complete execution of the decree without the applications of the petitioner, for setting aside the ex-parte order and for condonation of delay, being heard.

¶81

Sri M.K. Raj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in both the Civil Revision Petitions, would submit that the petitioner, who was earlier staying in Chittoor, had shifted to Vijayawada along with his family on account of his ill health and other financial problems

¶82

RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.539 & 738 of 2024

¶83

and was unaware of the filing of the suit. He would further submit^thatthe Trial Court, by simply holding that notice had been^{servedonthepetitioner,} had chosen to reject the application for condonation^{ofdelay.Hewould} submit that the Trial Court should have taken into account^{thefactthathe} had moved out of Chittoor and was unaware of the case.

¶84

of 2023 7. A perusal of the order of the Trial Court in I.A.No.295 would show that the Trial Court had specifically gone into the^questionof whether summons were served on the petitioner or not^{andhadheldthat} summons had been served on the petitioner on 24.07.2014^{itself.Thereis} were served on the address of the petitioner no dispute that the summons in Chittoor. However, it is the case of the petitioner^{thatthesaidserviceof} notice would not be valid as he had moved out of the^{saidplaceandwas} staying in Vijayawada.

¶85

It appears that the petitioner has not produced any^materialto show that he had moved to Vijayawada by the time notice^{hadbeenserved} on him on 24.07.2014. Further, he states that he came to know^aboutthe suit from his relatives who had informed him recently.^{Thisstatementdoes} not make out a sufficient ground in as much as the^{neitherthedetailsofthe} relatives of the petitioner nor the manner in which^{theyhadcometoknowof} the pendency of the suit and the execution petition^{havebeensetout.}

¶86

¶87

RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.539 & 738 of 2024

¶88

The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit^that the petitioner had filed his vakalat in O.E.P.No.5 of 2017 on 24.02.2017 itself and as such the contention of the petitioner^{thathewasunawareof} the filing of the suit or the decree till the year 2023 cannot be accepted.

¶89

In the circumstances, this Court does not find any^reason to interfere with the orders of the Executing Court in^{I.A.No.295of2023and} the C.R.P.No.738 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed.

¶90

In view of the dismissal of the C.R.P.No.738 of 2024, nothing further would survive in C.R.P.No.539 of 2024, which is also accordingly. dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶91

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall

¶92

stand closed.

¶93

¶94

Sd/- SRI.K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

¶99

One CC to SRI. M K RAJ KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶100

One CC to SRI. K. DILIP NAIK Advocate [OPUC]

¶101

Two CD Copies

Chp

CHP,

HIGH COURT

/ T t / > %

DATED:26/07/2024

COMMON ORDER

CRP.Nos.539 & 738 of 2024

¶111

5 16 DEC 2024 f
Curreni Section ,

¶112

DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS

S Ravi v. D Nirup Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Ravi v. D Nirup Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E. Suresh Vs the Regional Director

I. Koti Reddy, Vs Smt. a. Surya Kumari

Mrs. Godata Laxmi Vs The Government of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary

Jajala Muni Chandra Vs GaliChalapathy

S. Chan Basha, Vs Pujari Ramakrishna

Smt.C.Anjeramma Vs Poguri Chennaiah