Defendant challenged dismissal of his application to condone a 219-day delay in setting aside an ex parte decree in a perpetual injunction suit filed by his relative. He pleaded ignorance and collusion between his brother-defendant and plaintiff. The High Court found the explanation inadequate and dismissed the revision.
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
IHURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANOIKONDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2216 0F 2019
Petition under section 115 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High court may be pleased to set-asise the orders passed in l.A No 205 of 2016 in o s.No 6 of 2015 dated 3ito7t2o19 on the fire of the Learned Junior Crvil Judge, yellareddy.
Between:
Vadla_ Jagannadham g/.o Kashaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Korepote Village of Lingampet Mandat, Nizamabail District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO:1 OF 2019
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 pteased to stay all the proceedings in relation to o.S.No. 6 of 2015 on the fit'e of Learned Junior Civil Judge at Yellareddy.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. VIJAy B PAROpAKARt
Counsel for the Respondents: S SURENDER REDDY
The Court made the following: ORDER
-r-
IN THE HIGH COIJRT FOR THE STATE OF TEI ANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANl IIKONDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.22l6 of 2( I 9
2o'r' NovEMBER,2025
Bctween:
Vadla Jagannadhanr
...Petitioner/Dr.l :nda nt No. I
and
...Respondent</sup> o.l/Plaintiff
...Respondent No.2/ I)ct .ndant No.2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is fileJ by rhe petitioner/defendant No. I seeking to set-aside thc rrder. daled 31.07.2019in 1.A.No.205 of 2016 in O.S.No.06 of 2( 5 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Yellareddy, Nizarr rad Districr (hereinaltcr rcl-erred to as "trial Cour1"), wherein the r arned Judqe disrnissed the application filed lbr condonation of' c:lay ol 2lg days.
2 The brief facts of the case are that respondent t{ r t herein filed a suit for perpetual inj unction vide O.S.No.6 of I ( I 5 on the
t iI
!
2 NNR."/ C.R,P.No.22l6 oI20t9
file of the Junior Civil Judge, Yellareddy against the peritioner herein and his brother, who are arraycd as delendant
Nos. I and 2 before the trial Court.
to contest the I.A.No.205 of 2016 in O.S.No.06 of 2015.
J NNft,J C,R I,'o.2:I6 of 20l9
'zors1zyalors 'zo to lNoc;74 (MAD) (MadhuraiBanch)
it
.-
II
4 NNR,I C.R.P.No.22l6 of 2019
prejudice would have been caused to respondent No. l/ptaintiff if the matter been decided on merits.
7 Having heard the rival contentions of both parties and upon perusal of the entire material placed on record, it is evident that the suit was fi ted by respondent No. l/plaintiff seeking a perpetual injunction against both the defendants. Admittedty, thc petitioner hcrein and def'endant No.2 are brothers, who were anayed as defendants before the trial Court. The petitioner contends that both defendants had engaged counsel to defend the suit, and the reason cited for seeking condonation ofdelay is that
) NNR,J C h., .No.Dl6 of 2019
disputes alose between the petitioner and his brrr-ler, and defendant No.2 altegedly colluded with and joined Ir nds with respondent No I /plaintiff-. Consequently, the petit ( ner. \vas unable to contest thc suit, resulting in the suit beirl decreed ex parte. Except for these asserlions, no plausible or sa isfactory explanation has been fumished by the petitioner to i rable the Court to consider his case by invoking a liberal pproach. The reasons given in the petition are inadequate, ar< the trial Court was correct in dismissing it. This Court also fin,l , no valid basis to interfere rvith the trial Court's order
dismissed. No costs
Miscellaneous petitions, pending il any. ;l.rall stand
closed
//TRUE COPY//
SD/. N SRIHARI D:)UTY REGISTRAR ,/ \9
iECTION OFFICER
To,
PK/PSL N'-/^'
l
HIGH COURT
DATED:2011112025
CRP.No.2216 of 2019
( I dE S
()o q ) n ')q
trlz
*
( ) ..j-- rv'rCI {(-
CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED NO COSTS 6 JKi tz[>-lre .
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court rightly refused to condone a delay of 219 days in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vadla Jagannadham
Vadla Parandhamulu
Vadla Sathaiah
Narsing Rao Nanoikonda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
