Dismissed

Boinapally Ravinder Rao , Warangal and Another v. Kasam Pradeep Kumar, Hyd and Another

Telangana HC5 Aug 2021CRP/663/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Hyderabad disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing a condonation of delay application. The Court held that the impugned judgment was not ex parte as the defendant had filed a written statement, dismissing the revision and clarifying the right to appeal.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed; a regular appeal is permitted to challenge the judgment dated 05.08.2013.

Boinapally Ravinder Rao , Warangal and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF^AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN^REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 66^{3 0F 2017}

¶7

Petition under Article 227 o't lhe Constitution^{of lndia aggrieved by the order} dated23.12.2016 in l.A.No.70 0f 2014^{ino.S.No.34Bof20100nthefileofthecourt} of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,^Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Boinapally Ravinder Rao, S/o^{LakxminarasimhaRao, Age: 49 years, Occ:} Contrictor, R:/o H.No.1 1-25-54,^{Vasavi Colony, Warangal.}

¶10

Boinapally Laxminarasimha Rao, S/o^Raghava .^{Rao, Age:75 years,Occ:} AgricJ[ure, Fi/o Nandanam Village,^{WardhannapetMandal,Warangal.}

¶11

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

Kasam Pradeep Kumar, S/o Sathaiah,^{Age44 years, Occ: SoftwareEngineer,} R/o High Tech City, Hyderabad

¶14

Kolisetti Srihari, S/o Veeraiah,^{Age:65 years, Occ: Retd. Employee'} Rr/o H.No.4-6-121, Reddy Colony,^{Hanamakonda, WarangalDistrict.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶16

CRP.MP. NO: 852 OF 2017

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be pleasedtostay of} E.P.^proceedings including appearance^{of petitioners on every date of hearingin} E.P.No.564 of 2014 ino.S.No.34Bof 20l0onthefileof^{Principalseniorcivil Judge} at Warangal.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI^{ALLADIRAVINDER}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.^{ACHUTA REDDY}

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B, VIJAYSEN^1EDDY Civi Revt sion Petition No-663 of 2(l17

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated^23.12.2016 passed in I.A. No.70 of 2014 in O.S.No.348 of 2010 by the l)rincipal Senior Civil ludge at Warangal, where under application filed under Sectiorl^{5 of the Limitation} Act, seeking to condone the delay of 144 days for filinq an al)plication^{for setting} aside the ex^parte decree under Order IX Rule 13^CPC, was disrnissed.

¶24

The revision petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.348 of 2010.

¶25

Suit in O.S. No.348 of 2010 is filed for^permanent injunction by the respondents/pla intiffs 1 and 2 in respect of agricultural land almeasuring Acs.6.30 guntas in Survey No.418 situated at Nandanam Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District,

¶26

The 1't revision^petitione r/defe nd a nt entered hls appearance as defendant No.1 and filed written statement and the 2nd revision^pet tioner/2nd defendant adopted the written statement of the 1't defendant. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The 2nd respon dent/pla intiff was examine(j as P.W.1 and^relied on Exs.A-1 to A-13 documents. In the impugned order, the learned trial^Court observed that in spite of giving ample opportunity defendants have not adduced any evidence on their behalf and no arguments are advanced by them.

¶27

Learned counsel, Sri Alladi Ravinder, appearing for the revision^petitioners submits that the impugned order^passed by the Court below is illegal and erroneous. The Court below ought to have entertained the c()ndone delay^petition. The judgment and decree passed is an ex^parte and therefore, I.A. No.70 of 2014^is maintainable under law, thus, the findings of the Court b,3low that the^proper remedy for petitioners is to^prefer appeal against the^judgmert and decree;^petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and^petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC are not maintainable, are unsustainable.

¶28

¶29

ThisCourtperusedthejudgmentdatedo5'oB.2013passedino.S.No.348of..

¶30

20loandfoundthatthesaidjudgmentispassedonmeritsanditisnotanexparte judgment.Itisnot.thecaseofthepetitionersthattheywereSetexparteandthe courtbelowpassedthejudgmentdated05'08.20l3intheirabsence.Infact, written statement^{was also filed but the petitionersdid not choose to adduce any} evidence.Merelybecausethepetitionershavechosentoabsentthemselvesfrom theCourtproceedingsitcannotbeinferredthattheproceedingsareexparte proceedings. The^{judgment dated 05'08'2013 is passedon merits and it is not an} expartejUdgmentaspointedoutbytherevisionpetitioners/defendants.Hence, thisCourtdoesnotfindanymeritinthepresentrevisionpetitionandtheSameis liable to be dismissed.

¶31

Accordingly, this^{Clvil RevisionPetition is dismissed' However'it is made} clearthattherevisionpetitioners/clefendantsarenotprecludedfrompreferring regular appeal under^{Section 96 CPC challengingthe judgmentand decreedated} No.348 of 2010^{bv the PrincipatSeniorCivil Judge'} 05.08,2013 Passed^{in O.S.} Warangal.

¶32

Miscellaneous^{aPPlications,} if any Pending,^{shall standclosed'}

¶33

There shall be^{no order as to costs'}

¶34

//TRUE^COPY//

¶35

Sd/- T. KRISHNA^KUMAR ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

C,tn

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{SeniorCivilJudge at Warangal'}

¶41

2 One CC^{to Sri Alladi Ravinder' Advocate IOPUC]}

¶42

J One CC^{to Sri M. Achuta Reddy' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶43

4 Two CD CoPies 5 One SPare^CoPY v^br

¶44

HIGH COURT

¶45

DATED: 0510812021

¶46

IA
oz
,)):) 03 SEP202I
Jr
a

ORDER

CRP.No.663 ot 2017

DISMISSING THE CRP

(l.

Boinapally Ravinder Rao , Warangal and Another v. Kasam Pradeep Kumar, Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boinapally Ravinder Rao , Warangal and Another v. Kasam Pradeep Kumar, Hyd and Another

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

Enukonda Malla Reddy Vs Pendyala Janardhan Reddy and 4 Others

Madisetti Naga Raju, Vs Kakarla Rami Reddy

Smt. E. Sharada Bai , Smt. Sharada Vs Smt Rangamma

Sri Sanjay Agarwal Vs Sri Bhupendra Narayan Surti

Raunak Bhandari and another Vs Sri ChamarthiMallikarjuna Ramakrishna and 4 others

Chintha Narsubai, Karimnagar Dist and Two Others Vs Deepak Upadhyay, Adilabad Dist