Allowed

Kummari , Nadikudi Bal Narsaiah, v. Kummari Narsimha

Telangana HC13 Feb 2015CRP/2529/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the trial Court's order dismissing the defendants' application to condone delay in filing a petition to set aside an ex parte decree, noting the parties lacked opportunity to contest on merits.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order of the trial Court dated 17.09.2011 in I.A.No.217 of 2010. Costs of Rs.1,000/- awarded to plaintiffs.

Kummari , Nadikudi Bal Narsaiah, Vs Kummari… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

C.R.P.No.2529 of 2014

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents in spite of service of notice on them and hence, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶5

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17.09.2011 passed in I.A.No.217 of 2010 in O.S.No.474 of 2007 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

¶6

The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs.

¶7

The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.474 of 2007 for partition and separate possession. The petitioner No.3, who is aged about 70 years, and who is looking after the case, after receipt of the suit summons, could not instruct his counsel for filing the written statement, as a result of which, an ex parte decree was passed on 8.10.2009. Hence, the petitioners-defendants filed I.A.No.217 of 2010 seeking to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree passed on 8.10.2009.

¶8

The respondents-plaintiffs resisted the application of the petitioners-defendants seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the 3^rd petitioner has not filed any medical certificate and that the delay has not been properly explained. The trial Court has dismissed the application by observing that the alleged illness of joint pains and backache is not a severe ill health disabling the 3^rd petitioner from instructing his counsel for filing the written statement. The trial Court

¶9

further observed that the alleged illness is quite common during the old age.

¶10

Since the petitioners-defendants lacked opportunity to contest the case on merits, this Court feels that they should be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

¶11

Accordingly, the order of the trial Court dated 17.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.217 of 2010 seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in filing the petition is set aside, on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiffs in the suit, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶12

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

___________________________________ JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶15

13^th February, 2015 rkk

Kummari , Nadikudi Bal Narsaiah, v. Kummari Narsimha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kummari , Nadikudi Bal Narsaiah, v. Kummari Narsimha

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

Mohd. Najamuddin, S/o Ibrahim Najam, Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

M. Sivaiah S/o M. Rangaiah Vs District Collector, Ananthapur

Yanamadala Rajendra Prasad, Vs Md. Ali Sub- Divisional Cooperative Officer/

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society Khammam, Vs Sri K.Mahesh Babu

Battarusetty Ramesh, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

N. Achamma, Vs The A.P. Co.Operative Tribunal