This court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a District Court order that set aside an ex parte decree. The court upheld the order allowing the absent respondents to be heard, directing the lower court to dispose of the main suit within four weeks.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in the Civil Revision Petition are closed. No order as to costs.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2551 OF 2013
Date: 21-06-2013
Between: Syed Haneef Pasha. - - - Revision Petitioner. And Smt. Habeeb Bee and two others. - - - Respondents.
This Court made the following :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2551 OF 2013
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.04.2013 passed in I.A. No.1214 of 2012 in L.G.O.P. No.1 of 2006, by the District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were the respondents in L.G.O.P. No.1 of 2006. It appears that they have engaged an Advocate and participated in the proceedings; they also crossexamined PW.1 on 15.12.2009 and 02.02.2010. Then the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.214 of 2010 to summon the Town Planning Officer, Municipality, Gadwal to give evidence. However, the said petition was dismissed. Then, the petitioner herein filed additional affidavit in chiefexamination on 21.12.2010 and got marked Exs.A-7 to A-12. On that day, neither the respondents nor their counsel represented the matter. Accordingly, they were set ex-parte. After conclusion of the evidence, the lower Court allowed L.G.O.P. No.1 of 2006 on 14.11.2012. Then, the above respondents filed I.A. No.1214 of 2012 to set aside the exparte decree mainly contending that they went to Raichur town for eking out their livelihood and they were unable to consult their counsel. It is also specifically pleaded that their absence was neither wilful and that there are strong grounds in their favour.
3. The lower Court, by its impugned proceedings, allowed the said I.A. on 12.04.2013 and set aside the ex-parte decree dated 14.11.2012, passed in L.G.O.P. No.1 of 2006.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents herein have simply evaded the proceeding and they did not appear before the
Court for about two years.
5. The case of the respondents is that they went to Raichur of Karnataka to eke out their livelihood and were unable to contact their Advocate. Having regard to the facts and circumstances explained by the respondents, it cannot be said that the order of the lower Court is unjust or irregular.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a direction may be given to the lower Court to dispose of the main L.G.O.P. No.1 of 2006 itself, as early as possible. Admittedly, L.G.O.P. No.1 of 2006 was filed in the year 2006 and ex-parte decree was passed on 12.04.2013. In the above circumstances, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the main L.G.O.P. No.1 of 2006 itself, as early as possible, preferably within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 21-06-2013. Dsh.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2551 OF 2013
June 21, 2013
DSH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court’s order setting aside an ex parte decree and directing swift disposal of the underlying suit is a fit case for exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Whether the petitioner’s claim that respondents evaded proceedings justifies overriding the lower court’s findings on their inability to consult counsel.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Syed Haneef Pasha
Smt. Habeeb Bee
two others
B. Chandra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
