The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, if the defendant fails to appear on the day fixed for hearing, the Court may proceed with the case and pass judgment based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff. The objective behind the said provision is to prevent unnecessary delays in the judicial process.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the suit of specific performance was filed by the Plaintiff in order to direct the defendants to execute sale deed(s) in favor of the plaintiff on ascertaining the correct extent of land by measurement as per FMB, receive the balance of sale consideration before the Joint Registrar and register the sale deeds. The defendant no.1 was set exparte. The defendant stated that the 2nd defendant is the younger brother of the 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant was involved in cultivation and handled any land-related conflicts that may have arisen. Due to some financial disputes between the brothers, the first defendant asked the second defendant how the case was going. Because of his evasive responses, the first defendant harbored suspicions. Then, he got to know about exparte.
The trial court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/ 1st defendant under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside ex parte order. Therefore, the present civil revision is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the Petitioner bona fidely believed the 2nd defendant and when the 2nd defendant started giving evasive replies, the Petitioner inquired about the case status and then, he came to know about the exparte. It was furthermore contended that due to the fact that the suit involves substantial rights and he is challenging the execution of the suit agreement of sale, the petitioner should have had a reasonable chance to contest the suit.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the Petitioner had filed the present petition only to drag the proceedings. It was furthermore contended that the petitioner chose not to reach out to the court by filing a set-aside ex parte petition within a reasonable period even though he was fully aware that he had been set ex parte in the matter a long time ago.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that Article 227 of the Constitution grants supervisory jurisdiction, which is used to maintain subordinate courts' jurisdictional boundaries. Article 227 of the Constitution of India grants the High Court the authority to disregard or set aside factual findings made by a lower court or tribunal when there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached and when it is implausible for a reasonable person to have reached that conclusion. However, this Court is not justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the probabilities, reliability, or genuineness of the allegations made therein. It cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power.
It was furthermore observed that in accordance with Order IX Rule 7 CPC, the Court can proceed with the case and provide a decision based on the plaintiff's evidence if the defendant does not show up on the scheduled hearing day. The aforementioned provision aims to avoid needless delays in the legal proceedings.
The court relied upon the judgments titled R.N. Jadi & brothers v. Subhashchandra, Shoraj Singh v. Charan Singh, and Subburayulu Naidu v. B.Krishnamurthy Naidu (died).
The court noted that the present suit is coming for evidence on the defendant’s side. 1st defendant filed the petition to set aside ex parte order, by enclosing a written statement. Substantial rights of 1st defendant are involved in the suit.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the exparte order.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the civil revision petition.
Case title: BOLLU VENKATA SIVA SATYANARAYANA Vs MADHYANNAPU RAMA KRISHNA DAS AND OTHERS
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Case No.: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 637 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: SRI. P A SESHU
Advocate for the Respondent: TURAGA SAI SURYA
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :