HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1532 OF 2022
Date: 04.11.2022
Between:
S.S.Naidu Builders & Developers,
having Regd.Office at 20-86, Dayanad Nagar,
Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, rep.by Managing Partner,
S.Vinod, s/o.late S.Diddaiah Naidu, Aged about
50 years, occu: Business, r/o.Flat No.23,
Naidu Compelx, H.No.21-81/1, 10th cross road,
Uttam Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.
.....Petitioner/
Respondent no.12
and
H.Sajjanlal, s/o. late H.Kishan Ji,
Aged about 58 years, occu: Business,
r/o.6-1-194, Khairatabad, Hyderabad
and others.
.....Respondents/
Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2/
Defendants 1 to 11
The Court made the following:
PNR,J
CRP No.1532 of 2022
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1532 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel Sri A.Naren Raju for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri P.Rajender Reddy for respondents 1 and 2.
2. Petitioner herein claims that he entered into the Development Agreement with the defendants in O.S.No.895 of 2013 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Said suit was filed for partition. Ex parte decree was passed. Coming to know that ex parte decree was passed, petitioner filed I.A.No.1211 of 2021 to condone the delay of 379 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment dated 31.01.2019. Petitioner also filed I.A.No.1212 of 2021 to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment dated 31.01.2019. These two applications are pending for consideration before the trial Court. While so, trial Court passed the orders in I.A.No.1637 of 2019 in O.S.No.895 of 2013 appointing Advocate- Commissioner directing him to go to the suit schedule property and division the suit schedule property in terms of the preliminary decree, prepare a clear sketch and file it with the report.
3. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, as petitioner is seriously disputing the claim in the suit and he has already filed PNR,J CRP No.1532 of 2022 3 application to set aside the ex parte decree, without considering the said application, trial Court could not have proceeded to appoint Advocate-Commissioner.
4. The factum of filing of two I.As., mentioned above and pendency of those I.As., are not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2.
5. Having regard to the fact that application to set aside the ex parte decree is filed, trial Court ought to have considered the said application before proceeding to pass final decree. Therefore, the order appointing Advocate-Commissioner in I.A.No.1637 of 2019 is set aside and trial Court is directed to consider two I.A.Nos.1211 and 1212 of 2021 before proceeding to appoint Advocate- Commissioner. Having regard to the fact that as litigation is old, trial Court is directed to hear and pass orders in these two I.As., as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks. Petitioner is directed to cooperate for early disposal of the I.As. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 04.11.2022 Kkm PNR,J CRP No.1532 of 2022 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1532 OF 2022 Date: 04.11.2022 kkm