A civil revision challenging the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte order forfeiting the defendant's right to file a written statement. The revision was dismissed as no exceptional circumstances validated the delay.
The civil revision petition was dismissed with no order as to 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION N O: 1361 OF 2021
Petition under Arlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 917121 in lA No.619/2021 in OS No.194/2020 on the file of the Court of theprincipal Junior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad.
Between:
Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, S/o Shyam Sunder Ji Tiwari Aged About 41 Yeat, Occ- Business R/o H. No.7-4-382, New Ground Floor, Besides SaiBalaji Residency, Godown Road, N izama bad.
...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT
AND
Smt. Mahesh Kumar Jaju, S/o Ram Vilas Jaju, Aged About 64 Year, Occ- Business R/o.H No.7-1-36, Ram Gopal Street, Nizamabad District. Presently resident of H.No. 24-57, Ashok Road Mancheriya.
,,.RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
IAN F 2021,
Petition under Section'1 51 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in OS.No.194 ol 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, N izamabad.
For the Petitioner : SRI M.RATHAN SINGH, Advocate
For the Respondent : SRI I.V.RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY, Advocate
The Court made the following: ORDER
{
HONOURABLE SIII JUSl'ICE I}. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL ITEV ISION PETITIO N No.136l OF 2021
ORDER:
This revision is preferred challenging the dismissal order dated 9,07.2021 in I.A. No.6l9 of 2021, an application under Or.der - IX Rule - 7 read with Section l5l o1'the Code of Civii procedure. 1908 (CPC), in O.S. No.l94 of 2020, passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.
3, For the sake of conveniencc, the petitioner and the respondent herein are hereinafter relerred to as def-endant and plaintilf respectively.
08,02.202|,thetrial Courtdismissedhis application by the impugned order. Hence,this revision'
J
{
l
statementwas expired, as obsen'edby the trial Court in the impugned order, on28' 10.2020. However,aS Seen from the impugned order, the defendantwasset ex parte on 08022021 forfeiting his right to file written statement.Further, after a lapse of more than onemonth, convenientlyapplication was filed by the defendant seeking to set aside the exparteorder dated 08'02'2021'whichwas dismissed by the rial court.Thus. there is no illegality or irregularityin the order inrpugnedpassed by the trial Coutt warrantirrg interferenceof this Cortlt torer, isc thc satrc'
11 Therefore.the civil revision petitionis disn.rissed'No order
as to costs
As a sequelthereto' miscellaneousapplications, if any, pending
in the revisionstand closed'
sd/ -M.MAN JU R REGIS ASSISTANT /ITRUECOPY// SECTIONOFFICER
\
To
( o P uc) i Hi'gs'dif ffitrfi'[iffi ffi kllikYs: i: H:33*?A:;,
HIGH COURT
DATED:2011212021
ORDER
S rA
( os 1
i
d o 4 JAt't2022
.a'
+..
CRP.No.1361 ot 2021
DISMISSING THE CRP.
<br>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte order for forfeiture of right to file written statement.
Whether the extension of time under COVID-19 rules was misused by the defendant to delay filing the written statement for over a month.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Kumar Tiwari
Smt. Mahesh Kumar Jaju
Justice B. Vijayssen Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
