Dismissed

B.Narasimhulu v. C.Prabhakar

Telangana HC23 Dec 2011CRP/1828/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Trial Court order refusing to set aside an order dated 26.9.2007. The Court held that the judgment was not an ex parte decree as it was delivered on merits after the petitioner failed to appear for evidence, making no exception to taking. Thus, the revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition No. 1828 of 2011 was dismissed. No order as to costs.

B.Narasimhulu Vs C.Prabhakar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1828 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This revision is filed against the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, in I.A.No.256 of 2008 in O.S.No.7 of 2006 refusing to set aside the ex parte order dated 26.9.2007 and permit the petitioner to contest the suit.

¶4

The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of money. The matter was coming up for evidence, in spite of granting several adjournments, the petitioner-defendant did not turn up for giving evidence, and hence, the Court below closed his evidence and posted the matter for arguments, and thereafter, heard the matter on 25.9.2007 and delivered the judgment on 26.9.2007 decreeing the suit. After delivering the judgment, the petitioner-defendant filed the above application seeking to set aside the decree dated 26.9.2007 stating that he was suffering from ill-health and as such, he could not attend the Court and his absence was not intentional and wanton. The Court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

¶5

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶6

A perusal of the order under revision goes to show that the petitioner-defendant cross-examined the witnesses of the respondentplaintiff and thereafter, the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was closed and the matter was adjourned for the evidence on behalf of the petitioner-defendant. Thereafter, in spite of granting several adjournments, the petitioner-defendant did not turn up for giving evidence and therefore, the Court below heard the matter on merits and delivered the judgment decreeing the suit on its own merits. The decree passed in the suit is not ex parte decree. That being so, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Court below,

¶7

refusing to set aside the order in the suit.

¶8

There is no merit in the C.R.P. and the same is accordingly

¶9

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶10

__________________ Justice N.V. Ramana Dated:23.12.2011 Nn.

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶12

C.R.P. No:1828 OF 2011

¶13

23.12.2011

¶14

B.Narasimhulu v. C.Prabhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Narasimhulu v. C.Prabhakar

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

Smt.J.Rajeswari Vs J.Sakunthalamamma [Died]

P.Venkataswamy Reddy Vs Shaik Nanne Saheb[died]

Zarina Bee Vs S.Karimullah and 6 Others

A. cHenchu Reddy Vs R. Balasubramanyam

Kalluri Ramesh Vs Ch.Narsimha Reddy

S. Eswarachari Vs N. Venugopal