THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.912 of 2020
ORDER:-
The 1st respondent herein had filed a suit bearing
O.S.No.350 of 2009 before the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet against the deceased/2nd respondent herein and the petitioner herein, for declaration of ownership over suit schedule property, and for the consequential relief of delivery of possession. The 2nd respondent and the petitioner after receiving notices, contested the matter by filing a written statement. This suit was transferred to the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur and renumbered as O.S.No.227 of 2010. Subsequently, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli was established and the suit was again transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli and renumbered as O.S.No.37 of 2013. It appears that the trial Court proceeded with the trial of the suit after setting the defendants ex parte and passed a decree and judgment in favour of the 1st respondent on 14.06.2013. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application for setting aside the said ex parte judgment and decree, with a delay of 530 days. The petitioner had also filed I.A.No.287 of 2015 for condoning the said delay of 530 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order.
2. The contention of the petitioner, in the said application was that she had defended her suit and had filed written statement after the suit had been transferred to the I 2 RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. However, she was unaware of the subsequent transfer of the suit from the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli and she had not been informed about the transfer of the case by her counsel. She further submits that she had not visited the office of her counsel due to ill- health and was unaware of the adjournments and stages of the suit. She submits that on account of these developments in the suit, she was unable to defend the suit in time and was approaching the trial Court at the earliest point of time after coming to know of the ex parte order passed against her.
3. The 1st respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the transfer of suit as it was an administrative action and was known to everybody.
4. After considering the submissions of both sides, the trial Court had dismissed this application by way of an order dated 27.02.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present civil revision petition.
5. The trial Court took into account the record of the court, which revealed that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had been set ex parte by the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli on 20.03.2013 and that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had filed I.A.No.382 of 2013 under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C for setting aside the said ex parte order dated 20.03.2013 and the same had been allowed on 01.04.2013. 3
RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020 However, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent did not appear thereafter, and the trial Court had set the petitioners ex parte and the judgment and decree came to be passed on 14.06.2013. In view of these facts, the trial Court refused to accept the contentions of the petitioner that she was unaware of the transfer of the suit and that she could not contact her counsel on account of her ill-health. The trial Court also held that the contention of the petitioner that she was suffering from illness, could not be accepted as no material has been placed before the trial Court to demonstrate the said illness.
6. Sri Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had never engaged any counsel in the Court of the senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli nor did she move any application for setting aside an earlier ex parte order. He submits that the deceased/2nd respondent appears to have engaged a counsel. He further submits that the record does not show any vakalat that is said to have been filed by Sri Ch.Chandrasekhar, the counsel who is said to have been engaged by the petitioner herein.
7. Heard Sri Alapati Rohini Srinivasa Murthy, who contends that the version raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted as none of this was raised earlier and no such contention has even been recorded by the trial Court.
8. The contention of the petitioner was that she was unaware of the transfer of the suit from Senior Civil Judge, Guntur to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. This 4 RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020 contention of the petitioner was disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner had engaged a counsel had even filed an application for setting aside an earlier ex parte order. The petitioner contends that she never engaged any lawyer nor she did file any application for setting aside the earlier ex parte order. This issue has not been considered before the trial Court. In the event it is demonstrated that there is no vakalat which has been signed by the petitioner and that no application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, she would be entitled for a fresh hearing on the application for condonation of delay.
9. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the order dated 27.02.2020 in I.A.No.287 of 2015 and remand the matter back to the trial Court for an appropriate decision on the question of whether the petitioner had been represented by a counsel before the trial Court after the suit had been transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order and decree dated 27.02.2020 and I.A.No.287 of 2015 in O.S.No.37 of 2013 is remanded back to the trial Court for an enquiry as to whether the petitioner had engaged a counsel before the trial Court and had filed an application for setting aside the earlier ex parte decree and judgment dated 14.06.2013. If the trial Court arrives at a conclusion, in favour of the petitioner, on the aforesaid issue, 5 RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020 it shall reconsider the application of the petitioner on the basis of the material that may be placed before the trial Court by either party. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 23-02-2022 RJS 6 RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.912 of 2020 Date : 23.02.2022 RJS 7 RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020