Allowed

S.Kona Vijay Kumar v. Sri Kona Srinivas

Telangana HC21 Nov 2014CMA/912/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge civil miscellaneous appeal against the dismissal of an application seeking to set aside an ex parte order and decree. In light of admitted delay in service and involvement of important property, the court set aside the ex parte order on condition of deposit of costs and directed the lower court to decide the interlocutory application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte order dated 31.10.2013 set aside on deposit of Rs.3,000/- to respondent's counsel; lower court directed to dispose of I.A.No.1214 of 2013 on merits; status quo maintained.

S.Kona Vijay Kumar Vs Sri Kona Srinivas — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 912 OF 2014

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order dated 26.03.2014 passed in I.A.No.1560 of 2013 in I.A.No.1214 of 2013 in O.S.No.840 of 2013 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/respondent/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed in I.A.No.1214 of 2013 in O.S.No.840 of 2013.

¶5

2. The case of the appellant is that the respondent herein has filed suit OS No.840 of 2013 against the appellant for relief of declaration and perpetual injunction and also filed injunction petition i.e., I.A.No.1214 of 2014 restraining the petitioner from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the same was allowed by setting the appellant as ex parte by order dated 31.10.2013. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed I.A.No.1560 of 2013 for setting aside the said order stating that the address given by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit as well as in I.A.No.1214 of 2013 was wrong. It is also stated that the summons in the suit were received in the last week of November, 2013 i.e., on 26.11.2013, whereas he was set ex parte on 31.10.2013. He also submits that the respondent/plaintiff is claiming property of the mother of the petitioner basing on the forged Will Deed and that he should be given an opportunity for agitating his rights in the application as well as in the main suit.

¶6

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the Process Server of the Court has made an endorsement stating that appellant refused to receive the summons.

¶7

The fact that the address of appellant/respondent is wrongly mentioned is not denied and it is also not denied that the summons were served on the petitioner on 26.11.2013. Since the suit is for declaration of title, important properties are involved. In view of above facts and circumstances, I deem it proper that Interlocutory Application I.A.No.1214 of 2013 shall be decided on merits.

¶8

4. In view of the same, ex parte order dated 31.10.2013 is set aside on condition of the petitioner deposits Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only) payable to the respondent’s counsel, within a period of three (3) weeks from today. The Court below is directed to dispose of I.A.No.1214 of 2013 on merits, after hearing both sides. Till the disposal of the aforesaid Interlocutory Application, status quo shall be maintained by both parties.

¶9

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this CMA shall stands disposed of.

¶10

_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶11

21.11.2014 Note: issue CC by two days B/o.kvs

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶13

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 912 OF 2014

¶14

Date: 21.11.2014

¶15

kvs

S.Kona Vijay Kumar v. Sri Kona Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kona Vijay Kumar v. Sri Kona Srinivas

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

D.Narsing Rao Vs Geetha Srinivasan

P. Ramanjaneyulu Naidu, Vs K. Kanna Babu

. Vs .

Dr.Muralidhar Rao Vs Smt.Bhagawati Devi

Bethi Mallamma Vs Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

P. Ravi Varma Babu, Vs K. Santosh Rao