In common order, the High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions filed by the plaintiff against the lower Court's order setting aside an ex parte decree. The High Court found no patent error in the lower Court's exercise of discretion to condone delay and set aside the decree.
Both civil revision petitions are dismissed. No 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.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.507 & 514 of 2013
DATE: 08.03.2013
Between: M/s. Premeier Enterprises, Rep., by its Managing Partner, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioner And Ponnada Deva Prakash and 5 others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.507 & 514 of 2013
COMMON ORDER:
Both these revision petitions, which arose out of the proceedings in O.S.No.2325 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam are heard together and decided by this common order.
The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the suit is filed for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. Since the defendants/respondents herein failed to appear, they were set ex parte and accordingly the suit was decreed ex parte on 29.08.2011. In pursuance thereof, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.128 of 2011.
Thereafter, the defendant No.6/1st respondent herein came up with two applications namely I.A.No.711 of 2012 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree and I.A.No.337 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 241 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. Despite notice, the plaintiff did not choose to oppose and therefore I.A.No.337 of 2012 filed for condonation of delay was allowed by order dated 14.09.2012 condoning the delay on payment of costs of Rs.500/-.
Accordingly, the costs were paid and then I.A.No.711 of 2012 filed under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. was taken up for consideration. In that application, the plaintiff filed a counter opposing the petition and stating that the defendant No.6 being a practising advocate was very well aware of the Court proceedings and that the plea taken by him that he was not aware of the legal proceedings and that he was not served with any notice is incorrect.
However, the Court below did not accept the said contention and accordingly set aside the ex parte decree by order dated 10.12.2012 taking into consideration that the defendant No.6 has already filed his written statement along with the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.
Aggrieved by the same, these two Revision Petitions are filed by the plaintiff.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the orders under revision suffered from any patent error of fact or law warranting interference by this Court. The discretion exercised by the Court below in allowing the applications is neither perverse nor illegal and the ex parte decree was set aside assigning valid reasons.
Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
__________________
Date: 08.03.2013 KLP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower Court's order setting aside an ex parte decree for condoning delay and filing a second application.
Whether the discretion exercised by the Court below in allowing the applications was perverse or illegal.
Whether the orders under revision suffered from any patent error of fact or law.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Premeier Enterprises
Ponnada Deva Prakash
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
