Allowed

Nanabala Amaranath, v. Moore Venkata Reddy

Telangana HC28 Feb 2013CRP/6611/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging a lower court's condition for setting aside an ex parte decree. The reversal imposed a deposit of half the decretal amount was lifted, attributing the failure to appear to bereavement rather than default.

What did the court decide?

Condition to deposit half of decretal amount imposed by the trial court is set aside; trial court directed to proceed on merits within four months.

Nanabala Amaranath, Vs Moore Venkata Reddy — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARSIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6611 OF 2012

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

The respondent filed O.S.No.54 of 2011 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Punganur against the petitioner, for recovery of about one lakh, on the strength of a promissory note. The suit was decreed ex parte on 28-03-2012. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A.No.188 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 13 of C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. He pleaded that, on 05-03-2012, the date on which it was fixed for his appearance, one of his relatives died, and thereby, he could not attend the court, nor engaged a counsel. It is stated that as soon as he came to know about the decree, he has filed the application. No counter

¶4

was filed by the respondent. But the I.A. was opposed. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order dated 13-09-2012 by imposing a condition that the petitioner shall deposit half of the decretal amount within 30 days. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the condition.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that imposition of the condition cannot be justified, particularly, when the petitioner was prevented from entering appearance on account of the bereavement in the family.

¶6

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that there was clear default on the part of the petitioner and as a matter of fact, the I.A stood dismissed, on account of failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount, within the stipulated time.

¶7

The suit was filed in the year 2011 and it was directed to be listed on 05-03-2012 for appearance of the petitioner/defendant. It is no doubt true that the summons were received by the petitioner

¶8

well in advance, but he is said to have suffered bereavement in the family on 05-03-2012 itself. On that day, he was set ex parte and the matter was adjourned to 28-03-2012. An ex parte decree was passed on that day. Hardly within one week from the date of decree, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The imposition of an onerous condition of depositing of half of the decretal amount cannot be sustained under the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be said that the petitioner has protracted the proceedings or did not cooperate in the matter. On the other hand, he filed written statement along with the application itself.

¶9

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order in I.A. in so far as, it imposing condition of deposit of half of the decretal amount, is set aside. Now that the written statement is filed, the trial Court shall proceed with the suit on merits and shall endeavor to dispose of the same within four (4) months from the date of receipt a copy of this order.

¶10

The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶12

Dated:28-02-2013 nvl/gj

Nanabala Amaranath, v. Moore Venkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanabala Amaranath, v. Moore Venkata Reddy

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

M/S Madhu Transport, Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Sri.Ch.Raja Reddy Vs The Prl.Secretary to Government

Sri Padmavathi Venkateshwara Medical Science Vs The Government of A.P rep.by its

N. Maheswar, Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board

The Godavari Fishermen Cooperative Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Svec Construction Ltd. Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh