Allowed

Maganti Karimila Babu v. Bolla Venkateswara Rao

Telangana HC23 Apr 2012CRP/886/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a civil revision to set aside an ex parte decree. The court condoned a 612-day delay due to illness and claimed settlement, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,000 within 30 days to restore the suit. The trial court was directed to dispose of the restored suit within three months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order; condone the delay; direct deposit of Rs.1,00,000 within 30 days; restore the suit for disposal within three months.

Maganti Karimila Babu Vs Bolla Venkateswara Rao — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.886 OF 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Challenging the order dated 17.12.2011 passed in I.A.No.465 of 2011 in O.S.No.101 of 2009 by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, the present revision is filed by the petitioner-defendant.

¶4

The respondent filed the suit for recovery of amount. The suit was decreed exparte on 25.6.2009. On that, the petitioner-defendant filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application to condone the delay of 612 days in filing the same. The Court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant filed the present revision.

¶5

Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The suit was filed in the year 2009 and it was decreed exparte on 25.6.2009. The application to set aside the exparte decree was filed in the year 2011 with a delay of 612 days. The reason assigned by the petitioner for such delay is that after receiving the suit summons, he approached the plaintiff and he represented that he would withdraw the suit and so, the petitioner kept quite and he knew about the decree only after receiving the notice in the E.P. filed by the respondent and that he suffered illness due to nephrites.

¶7

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the suit, the order under revision is set aside and the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), on or before 30^th June, 2012. On such deposit, the trial Court is directed to condone the delay and also set aside the exparte decree and restore the suit. On being restored, the suit shall be disposed of, within a period of three months thereafter.

¶8

With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, interim stay granted earlier stands vacated and the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are

¶9

closed.

¶10

____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶11

Dated: 23.4.2012 Nn

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶13

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.886 OF 2012

¶14

Nn.

¶15

23.4.2012

Maganti Karimila Babu v. Bolla Venkateswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maganti Karimila Babu v. Bolla Venkateswara Rao

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

Reddipalli Satyanarayana Vs Ayyagari Venkata Subba Rao

Chalumuri Chinnanaidu, Vs Siripurapu Apparao

Mungara Venkata Subbamma Vs Ambati Ramaniah

Rallakanti Prameela, Vs Rallakanti Salmanraju

Sree Adibhatla Sree Devi,W/o. Sree Adibhatly Phanikumar, Vs Sree Adibhatla Phani Kumar

Thedlapu Venkateswarlu, Vs Urmu Atcharao