Remanded

Mohammad Madeena v. Fatte Ahmed

Telangana HC4 Feb 2013CRP/1533/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition regarding the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte order, the court held that even if the trial court disbelieved the plea for delay, it could have allowed defendants to participate in ongoing trial proceedings rather than barring them from filing a written statement.

What did the court decide?

The order under revision was modified to allow the revision petitioners to participate in the trial proceedings.

Mohammad Madeena Vs Fatte Ahmed — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1533 of 2012

¶3

DATE: 04.02.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mohammad Madeena and another …Petitioners And Fatte Ahmed and 2 others.

¶6

…Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1533 of 2012

¶9

O R D E R:

¶10

By the order under revision, the Court below has dismissed I.A.No.427 of 2011 filed by the defendants 1 & 2 under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte order dated 02.11.2010.

¶11

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶12

The 1^st respondent herein filed O.S.No.60 of 2010 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili for cancellation of a gift deed and consequential reliefs. Admittedly, suit summons were served on the defendants 1 and 2/the revision petitioners and appearance was entered on their behalf. However, they failed to file the written statement and therefore, they were set ex parte on 02.11.2010. The application under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. came to be filed on 14.07.2011 stating that the defendants 1 & 2 could not appear for health reasons. The Court below disbelieved the said plea and accordingly dismissed the application holding that there was no bona fides on their part in remaining silent for a long period of about an year.

¶13

Even assuming that the Court below was not satisfied with the explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of the application for setting aside the ex parte order, having regard to the purport of Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. I am of the opinion that the Court below could have permitted the defendants 1 & 2 to participate in the proceedings from the stage at which the suit stands as on the date of the order under revision.

¶14

It is brought to my notice that the trial is in progress. Hence,

¶15

though the revision petitioners cannot be permitted to file the written statement, they should be allowed to participate in the trial. The order under Revision is accordingly modified and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶16

__________________ G. Rohini,J Date:04.02.2013 KLP

Mohammad Madeena v. Fatte Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Madeena v. Fatte Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Landa Pydithalli, Vs Sri Land Seethamnaidu

Pidugu Kondala Rayudu Vs Sri Gopi Nath

Sri Kadupukotla Devudu Vs Smt. Chandaka Jhansi Kumari

Thakur Niranjan Singh, Vs a. Shivakoti Prasad

Ampolu Eswara Venkata Krishna Vs Kondru Prathima

Radi Balaraju, Vs Kolisi Mary