Allowed

Smt. M. Ahilya v. D. Sai Prasad Babu

Telangana HC14 Jul 2023CRP/1981/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, quashing the lower court's order dismissing an application to condone delay in restoring a failed plea to set aside an ex parte decree, and directed the lower court to decide the application on merits within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; I.A. No. 671 of 2017 was restored; the Court below was directed to decide the application on merits within 30 days.

Smt. M. Ahilya Vs D. Sai Prasad Babu — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON NO: 1981 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under section 1 15 of CPC/Article 227 constitution of lndia against the Order dated 1010312023 in IA.NO. 591of 2022 in |A.NO. 671 ot 2017 in O.S.NO. 91 of 2009 on the file of the court of the XLV Additional Chief Judge C.C.C Hyderabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. M. Ahilya, Wo. M. Pandu, age. 67 Years, Occ. House Wife, Rt/o. H.No 23-5-582 and 583, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. D. Sai Prasad Babu, S/o. D. Satyanarayana, aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.23-5-579 and 580, Laldawaza, Hyderdbad.

¶13

,..RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶14

Smt. P. Uma Rani, Vl H N o 2 3-s- 582 "^{* {'3.,' i3,1? X,?j;::fi;33.1831,1' 3;: H""S;#J'"",',fl lr,.}

¶15

a profarma party to this petition)

¶16

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT NO.2

¶17

(The Respondent No.2 is a profarma party to this petition)

¶18

IAILO: 1 oF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No. 3 ot 2Oj7 in O.S. No. 91 of 2019 on the file of learned XIV Addl. Chief Judge, at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above CRP

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CHEKURI YADAGIR|

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RACI NAIDU

¶24

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1981 OF 2O23

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in O.S.1tro.91 of 2009, under Article 227 of the Constitution ,rf India 1n assailing the Order dated 1O.O3.2023 pasrsed LA.No.581 o1'2022 in I.A.No.67l of 2Ol7 in O.S.No.91 of 2OO9 by the learnecl XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hl.derabad, whereundt:r the application fiied by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 see king to condone the delay ln Iiling petition to restore I.A.No.671 of 2017, was dismissed.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Perused the material available on record.

¶28

¶29

On perusal of the entire^{materialplaced} before this Court, it unfolds that the petitioner/defendant No.1 having filed^{the application} under Order IX, Rule 13 of^{Code of Civil Procedure,} 1908 seeking to set aside the^{ex parte Judgmentand} decree passed in O.S.No.9l of^2OO9 on^12.07.2017 vide I.A.No.671 of 2017, did not^pursue the^same Thereby, the said application was dismissed^{for default} on 15.03.2022. It seems the^petitioner has^been participating in the execution proceedings.

¶30

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner has} submitted that due to inadvertence of the^counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner before^{the Court} below did not pursue I.A.No.671 of 2Ol7 and the same was dismissed for default on 15.O3.2022. Thetefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.S8 1 of 2022 sgeking^to condone the delay in frling petitioner seeking^{to restore} I.A.No.67 1 of 2Ol7 , however, the said application^came

¶31

¶32

to be dismissed. It seems the Court beltw has

¶33

dismissed the petition in view of the in-ordinate delay in filing the restore petrtion

¶34

In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstafices of this <:ase, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Order and I.A.No.58 1 ol 2022 is allou,ed.

¶35

As a consequence thereof, I.A.No.67 1 of 11017 is restored. Moreover, thc Court below is dire<:ted to decide I.A.No.671 of 2017 on merits a_fter hearirLg both the parties, in accordance u,ith law, preferably uithin a period of thirty (30) da1.s from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and report compliance.

¶36

Pending. miscellar-reous applications, if an1 , shall

¶37

stand closed. No costs.

¶38

Sd/-A./.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT^I1EGISTRAR

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

&i SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To, 1 . The XIV Additional^{Chief Judge at Hyderabad} 2. One CC to SRl. CHEKURI^{YADAGIRI Advocate} [OPUC] ?. Two CD Copies KKS

¶42

HIGH COURT

¶43

DATED:1410712023

¶44

c6,= 4 rc- oA
Y
IJq -,z
iO
\ ,-: ? 2 ru$lm
-'c
I

ORDER

CRP.No.1981 of 2023

ALLOWING THE CRP

5
ZE2)

Smt. M. Ahilya v. D. Sai Prasad Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. Ahilya v. D. Sai Prasad Babu

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

Kummari Laxmi Bai , Bommena Laxmi Bai, Vs Sri. G.Rajeshwar

S. Chandra Mohan Vs N.Narasaiah and Another

Pavan Kumar and Another Vs Sumanth Kumar

M/s Sree Pulipati Electrical Enterprises Vs M/s Veto Switchgears and Cables (P)Ltd

L Singh, Nizamabad Dist and 1 Other Vs Ranga Rao Pendyala, Hyderabad and 1 Other

United India Insurace Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs Kantlam Nagamany, Guntur Dist and 4 Others