Disposed

Mr. Bobba Nagender Reddy v. Bobba Aravinda Reddy

Telangana HC16 Sept 2025CRP/3167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petition challenging an order refusing to set aside an exparte decree and restore the defendant's right to file a written statement. The High Court found the rival versions required verification of trial court records on service of summons and representation by counsel, and remanded the matter to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to trial court to verify service of summons and representation by counsel; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Mr. Bobba Nagender Reddy Vs Bobba Aravinda… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t³⁴⁴²¹

¶2

rN^{rHEHIGHcouRr F?$JEFfJ$EoF TELANGANA}

¶3

ruEsDAY,rtrEosrllRtxsr'{,{ro,f',?=I'JEMBER

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE^HONOURABLE

¶6

SMT^{JUSTICE RENUKAYARA}

¶7

'.$ 5 ;.' :l;[11^{:l'1}.""?, Ij :l} Pet*.n-uno;:sfi.iT,$:ff.""?]'J[X'1rJ:ti dated^1gt}gl2024. the^{PrincipalDistrrct Judge' Suryapet'}

¶8

Betweeruq",,*lr,"Jlffi

¶9

,P"Ffl,%il?'"j*?'3?}*1

¶10

vears^occp hear^{Bluesea LioT€} it5?,lJ,i{ili}T:iiffi^{outrurrrv' vv''--r}

¶11

No'2 "'PetitionerlDefendant

¶12

AND ^';B"B:itillBft ar^ .^h[.o Qatrran2ravana Reddy'^{native of} residing^{at I} ff [ii+?,:s#'BH#iHif^{Ift r,"$it#]iE::rlv,} e^{i m h a Redd v'} by hⁱ s^{o pn'iJr'o'"i?d;EG i; Jt "C"b lV, Slo'^rJi"' H} i N "I' Age. 55^{y"r',rl,'b1q.Igii"urtu;|:ni;:T{$.ig-TTd rtrilir.fRoad, Nakrekal} Vilr,^g e o'rtii^{n-o-J,r'iEig o n d i D i strict-5 0 8 21 1} "h

¶13

2R8l3i*??:Yffi3'if "h il,3i:39{tiffi '"13''fi ,^j}l"t5fr i*',:i"'"Y"fr [iq: ffit^pdrtnximAliy,:#, fli[rl H,""'ffi^lti: Ua^{t'?t ff lfl?9*} Aot.. Behin,i ;oritni^{dotony,'D;d'd;la,inaiiVittage, varthu Hobli, Bangalore} Ebst Taluk, Bangalore-560035

¶14

3'"033@n#i'jnJESS-1*,i)[''1X{"Y}ff 3tsVf 3?,lYi'.h,'{ql:48,ff : *xt[e5";a[[ie-ittttUsl'v+rl;r,Y;1;ffiLqiiflEf{?Ei'J;e'x,h' G#i M;;.-;,ud,^{[e Nagar,Hyderabad 500074 Telangana}

¶15

4.VasanthapuSiddardhaPillay,s/o-..Npt!.loy.ltotheplainffi,Age.36years, occ. Busin"Si',"Hil.^{ii. lto.lio:iSatt,oirinitaMees'eva, suryapet town and}

¶16

Mogili^{Somulu, S/o, Nollnownto the plaintiff, Age' 55 years, Occ Business'} nyol n. uo:1f6-i's4/1,^{i-iivini, ory cieaners,s-uryapettown and district}

¶17

Konda Srinivas^{Rao, S/q. N-ot knqwnto the plaintiff, AgS. 45 ye.a.rs, Occ'.} Business, nio.^{n-tt-o.i-e-t5+i1,'Roopatypei lnstitute,-Suryafet town and} district

¶18

73l15H3,i?3:ffi

¶19

',i3:?8#?lf:slx3s",rt:,,:,:3[ar&,r,x#fi

¶20

8gRf,*::#31[:,,.r,i:fu

¶21

Tia?,".",;.,

¶22

eLl:fl,:i*!il6g1g3x_y,!"J:,,.:1:1:f ;;JTi,d,e$:;.1iriita3m

¶23

" I?i?j8^.*lih,

¶24

#;,11#"ff",ffi ;;f;^,,,nu,,

¶25

Ei", #:ll-C;#;rn:.s i#,,J[,?i t;I,i* lli# " H N o

¶26

Res No. 4 to 10are not necessary parties.

¶27

...Respondents

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition ,?j_:1, Section 1s1 of CpC pravinc ,.,r rnterest of justice. iffd;h{'i:ildi{hi,li}:Tffi ffi nf .t$:=:i,,{fl

¶29

Counset for the petitioner: SRIAADESH VARIUA

¶30

counser for the Respondent No.2: M/s MAN.GN'A voLrMlNENr

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

TT{S,HONOURABLE

¶33

S}/IT.^{JUST1CE RENUKAYARA}

¶34

ffi-presentCivitRevisionPetitionisfi1edaggrievedbytheorderofthe rearned^{principarDistrict Judgeat suryapet in r.A.No.586 of z0z4 in o'S'No'20} of 2018^{dated 19'09'2024'}

¶35

2.Thecaseoftherevisionpetitioner/defendantNo.2isthatheisresidingat Hyderabad,^{but his address is shown at suryapet and summonswere allegedly} served at^{Suryapet.It is the specificcase of the revision petitioner that he has} not received^{any summons in the suit and thereforehe was not representedin the} suit and his^{right to file written statementhas beenforfeited and that he has been} set exparte

¶36

3 The current revision^{petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned} Principal District Judge at Suryapet^{in I.A.No.586 of 2024in O.S.No.20of 2018} dated 19.09.2024 which was filed under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set^aside the exparte order dated 16.04.2019 passed against him and to permit him to file the written statement. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that he has not engaged any counsel and he has not given any vakalat in that regard. After passing of the impugned order, the revision petitioner filed copy application to obtain certified copy of the vakalat of the counsel who reoresented the revision petitioner before the trial Court. But, the said copy application is not complied. The non-compliance of copy application, according to tho rovisi7n petjtiynef -/

¶37

cRP_3 ,ur_:#,i shows that no counser has represented him before the Triar court. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that he came to know about the pending suit only when he received notice in c.R.p.N os.r243 of 2024 and, t253 of 2024, i'e'' when notices were served at his Hyderabad residence.

¶38

4' To the contrary, the case of the respondent is that summons were served, the revision petitioner was represented by a counsel before the Trial court and only on account of the failure to file written statement, his right was forfeited. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently denied the nonrepresentation of the revision petitioner by a counsel before the Trial Court.

¶39

5' The learned Principal District Judge relied upon the docket proceedings which show that the revision petitioner was represented by a counsel and on L6.04.2019, due to non-filing of written statement, the right to file written statement has been-forfeited. tt is held that the docket order dated rc.a4.2olg does not show that the revision petitioner was set exparte that his right to file written statement was forfeited.

¶40

The truth in the versions of the rival contentions can be ascertained only by Vefftyfng^{the record before the Trial Court.Moreparticularly, there is a need} to^{vetify whethersummonswere served on the revision petitioner at Survapet} and^{whethera counse\has representedthe revisron petrtro"-} 1:address

vaka\at'

')-

\ \

RY,J cRP 3167 2024

7 - Therefore, this matter is remanded back to the Triat Court to ascertain

¶47

serving of summons on the revision petitioner and his representation by u counsel by name S. Someshwar and pass appropriate orders.

¶48

8 In the result, the civil Revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs' Misceilaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appear, shail stand closed.

¶49

SD/. A JAYAS REE
ASS ISTANT REG

/TRUE COPYII

OFFICER

To,

1 The

¶54

2 One

lli

ABK

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1610912025

ORDER

GRP.No.3167;f²⁰²⁴

ri \ii s
v
C)o 2 ? l[N ?ilt6 .a-.,
!:'
*
j-11i

¶67

DISPOSING^{OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS}

¶68

6 t w,

Mr. Bobba Nagender Reddy v. Bobba Aravinda Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Bobba Nagender Reddy v. Bobba Aravinda Reddy

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. Srinath Spinners Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Srinath Spinners Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Srinath Spinners Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Kamalapuram Shreshta Vs Alpuri Dheeraj

Mekala Kaveri @ Dobbala Ruchitha Vs Mekala Rajender

Shabbir Harron Vs the Special Director (Appeals)