Dismissed

K. Anand and another v. K. Mallesh and 3 others

Telangana HC10 Mar 2022CRP/462/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a civil revision petition filed by defendants opposing an ex parte order in a partition suit. The High Court held the revision non-maintainable due to a lack of error or infirmity in the lower court's findings regarding service of summons and the application's delay of nearly 19 years under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed without costs.

K. Anand and another Vs K. Mallesh and 3 others — Partition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY. THE^{TENTH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN}

¶5

CIV LRE ION PETITIO^{N NO:} 20F 2^)')

¶6

Petition Under^{Article227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated} 27l12t2l21in^{lA No.1562 of 2021in OS No 59 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the I} Additional Chief^{Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 K. Anand, S/o^{Late K. Narsimha Aged about 53 ye-ars'Occ Developmentotficer} iirJ^pjlji N""i5]'5'd^{rrooi s;; s.iF E;;'tve,'oppManasarovarVilla No 2} ii""^ri"ior, ei;"npatlv^{oair'iari-ioadtirumul gneiry' Secunderabad-15}

¶9

, ii:#iX#".,^{"si"'iri" xl N-r.ii;h,' ;s;; aoouts"o veirs} ^occ^{Medical Marketins} Develooment ofricer'^{R/o cd;;;;i; ii;tk;tingin n6nwin Specialitv Hospital'R/o} FrZi'n"J]b1,'S^{Nitd-)_zla."pjoi'No.iss,SirreshHarivillu Apartment,Next to} bj'iaiisn#.Ev^{west MarredpallvSecunderabad-26} - - -, ...peiifi6ilEndt^{FEririouens/ DEFENDANTS 4 & 5}

¶10

AND

¶11

1 K. Mallesh. S/o.^{LateK. SailooAged about7} .1^{yearc'Occ Retd Govt Employee'}

¶12

R/o. H.No.^{42. Fisherpura, Picket, Secunderabao'} ......Respondent/ plaintiff

¶13

K. Narender,^{S/o Late K Narsimha, R/o H No 3-44-144'beside Plot No41 ' lshaq} Colonv. AOC Gate,^{Secunderabad'}

¶14

s ts:^{"K.'B;"iliu;1"'" ii si i"o, eqed about 67 vea's' occDoctor'R/o Flat} No '03, Chola^{s Resioency.V"''tuti N'g" Cotony' KharkhanaSecunderabad}

¶15

Dr. K.S.^{Ashok Kumar,slo L"ie r<. siir"roAgediuout og years,occDoctor,R/o} - LN,j.l -i-1qslg, srlniuasanasir colonv, MuJheera.oqo^ !ty!gauao ...RESPoNDENi"s/^{riEiiiirloErurs1 ro 3i DEFENDANTS 1 ro 3}

¶16

lA NO:¹ oF²⁰²²

¶17

Petition under^{Section 15'1 ol CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the afiidavit^{filedtherewith,the Highcourtmay be pleasedto stay of all further} proceedings in O.S.No^{59/2000 on the file of lAdditionalChiefJudge' City Civil} Court, Secunderabad^{pending disposalof the above CRP}

¶18

For the Petitioners^{: SRISMITA KAKKAD,Advocate}

¶19

For the Respondents^{: NONEAPPEARED}

¶20

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶21

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶24

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.462 OF 2022

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard Ms. Smita Kakkad, Iearned counsel for the petrtloners

¶27

2 Petitioners are defendant Nos.4 and 5 in O.S.No.59 of 2000 instituted by the first respondent as the plaintiff. The suit is for partition, separate possession and rendition of accounts.

¶28

3 It appears that for default on the part of the petitioners, Iearned Court belou, passed an order on 02.O8.2002 deciding to proceed ex parte against the petitioners (defendant Nos.4 and 5).

¶29

4 For setting aside such ex parte order, petitioners filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the year 2021, which rvas numbered as I.A.No.1562 of 2021. By the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the iearned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, the said interlocutory application r.r,as dismissed. It is this order u,hich is under impugnment in the present revision petition

¶30

5 From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC it is seen that the suit rvas instituted by one of the paterna.l uncles of the petitioners in u,hich defendant No.l is the elder brother of the petitioners. According to the

¶31

¶32

petitioners they did not receive any summons from the Court; and therefore, they had no knowledge about^{pendency of the civil suit,} It was only when they visited the residence of the^plaintiffon 04.O7.2021 in connection with a^marriage function that^theycame to know about the pendency of the suit.

¶33

6 Such contention of the petitioners was^{rejected by the} learned Court below vide the order dated 27.12.2021 in^the following terms:-

¶34

"On thorough checking of the entire bundle of the suit,^the memo dt.02.Oa.2OO2 fi\ed by the then Advocate of^{plaintiff Sri} K.R.K.lyyengar is detected and the same memo^{contains the postal} receipt and acknowledgement card containing the name^of defendant No.4 ald the courier receipt containing^{the nameof} defendant No.5 who are the^{petitioners herein and they clinchingly} proves that the suit summons are served against the^petitioners / defenda-nts No.4 & 5.

¶35

On perusal of the docket order dt.02.08.2OO2^{i,l appears the} oflice note was not supported by the^{memo hled} by^{the then} Advocate of the plalntiff and therefore this court^{rightly passedex} parte order against petitioners / defendants No.4 &' 5^by considering the memo filed by the then^{Advocateof the plarntiff.} Hence the contentions of the petitioners are false^{and the present} petition filed by them after lapse of 19 years is not malnta.rnable. Hence this pctition'is drsmissed. Accordingly this^{point is ansr.l'ered} agarnst the petitioners,^"

¶36

7 On going through the order dated 27.12.2021 and^other materials on record, this Court finds no error or infirmity^{in the} view taken by the learned Court beiow. Learned Court^{below has} recorded a finding of fact on the basis of the^{materials on record} which clearly indicated service of summons upon the^petitioners.

¶37

8 That apart, as already noticed above, the^{ex pdrteorder was} passed on 02.OB.2OO2. The petition lor setting^{aside the ex parte}

¶38

¶39

order under Order 9 Rule 7 CpC was filed after aimost 19 years. Though Order 9 Rule 7 CpC does not prescribe any limitation for fiiing of such application, as per the Schedure to the Limitation Act, 1963, more particularly, in terms of Articre 137 thereof, under Part II - other Applications, the period of limitation is three years in the case of any application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere.

¶40

9 That being the position, Court finds no good ground to entertain the Civil Revision petition, u.hich 1S accord ingl_r' dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil Revision petition sha, also stand dismissed.

¶41

Sd/.N, CHAN DRASEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i To SECTION OFFICER 3 1. 9T The lndditional 9p^{to,sri smita} Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad.^{xau<Zo,ed'voiaieloFuci""* "" "*} J. r wo CU Copies 4_. One Spare Copy Kj.

!{k

HIGH COURT

OATEOt10l03l2022

ORD ER

CRP.No.462^{of 2022}

DISMTSSING^{THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS}

¶49

K. Anand and another v. K. Mallesh and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Anand and another v. K. Mallesh and 3 others

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

M/S Sai Rayalaseema Paper Mills Limited, Hyd Vs M/S Pallavi Dealers Private Limited, Mumbai

Mr. Surender Bantia , Premraj Surendar Bantia Vs K.N. Murthy

Mr. Surender Bantia , Premraj Surendar Bantia and another Vs K.N. Murthy and another

Smt. Tatineni Mayuri Vs Shri Edara Baldev

Dr. a. Santosh Vs Srinivas Sakilam

C.M. Ramesh Vs the State of Telangana