This order dismisses a Civil Revision Petition challenging a lower court’s rejection of an application to set aside an ex-parte order. The Court found the petitioner lacked bona fides as he failed to file a written statement despite being granted another opportunity.
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 A. RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4467 of 2014
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 10.10.2014 in I.A.No.420/2014 in O.S.No.199/2007 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Mahbubnagar wherein the Court below has dismissed the petition filed for setting aside the exparte order dated 18.03.2014 observing that the written statement was not filed in the prescribed time and the petition filed for extension of time in filing written statement was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner’s counsel was not well, he could not file the written statement within the time prescribed, but costs are paid as ordered by the Court below vide its order dated 22.02.2014. He further submits that the petitioner may be given one more opportunity for filing the written statement.
Though the Court below has passed an order dated 22.09.2014 allowing the petition filed for setting aside the exparte order and on condition of payment of costs, for filing the written statement on or before 10.10.2014. Even in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.724 of 2014, the reason mentioned for not filing the written statements in time is that the date of adjournment was noted down wrongly as 10.11.2014 instead of 10.10.2014 and again sought three weeks time for filing written statement and the court below by exercising its jurisdiction dismissed the said IA.
Even now, the petitioner’s counsel has not come with the written statement nor stated that written statement is ready for filing in the court below. He only submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by the condition imposed by this Court.
The attitude of the petitioner shows that he is not interested to
prosecute the suit, though an opportunity was given to him by setting aside the exparte order through order dated 22.09.2014. Therefore, I do not see any bonafides on the part of the petitioner, and also there is no any error in the order passed by the Court below.
Accordingly, CRP is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
Date: 01-12-2014 dv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the expiration order dismissing the petition for extension of time to file the written statement can be quashed in the interest of justice.
Petitioner
Respondent
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
