THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
C.R.P.No.522 of 2021
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the common order dated 16.03.2021 in I.A.Nos.690 and 691 of 2016 in O.S.No.48 of 2014 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar.
2. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.48 of 2014 against the petitioner herein for perpetual injunction. The petitioner herein remained ex-parte and the suit was decreed with costs on 24.06.2014. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.6 of 2016 and requested the court to send the petitioner herein/judgment debtor to civil imprisonment for a period of thirty days as the judgment debtor interfered with her peaceful possession on 25.02.2016 in spite of the decree passed by the trial Court.
2
3. While so, the defendant in the suit filed I.A.Nos.690 of 2016 and 691 of 2016 to condone the delay of 724 days in filing the set aside petition and to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 24.06.2014. The trial Court, vide common order dated 16.03.2021 dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay in filing the application is beyond the control of the petitioner and as per the compromise entered between the parties, but the trial Court without adopting the pragmatic approach dismissed the applications. The trial Court also observed that the documents of compromise were not filed by the revision petitioner. In fact, the suit is in respect of agricultural land, where the valuable rights of the parties are involved and therefore, passing of ex-parte decree is deprecated. Thus, requested the Court to set aside the order.
3
5. The defendant in the suit filed I.A.Nos.690 of 2016 and 691 of 2016 to condone the delay of 724 days in filing the set aside petition and to set aside the ex-parte decree passed on 24.06.2014.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant stated that after filing of the suit, the defendant along with village elders approached the plaintiff and questioned her why she has filed the above suit even though the suit schedule land was sold by her, but she stated that keeping in view of the old disputes she filed the suit for perpetual injunction and in view of mediation of elders of the village, he paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff in three instalments and it was received by her and assured that she will close the above suit. Believing her words only the defendant went away and thought that the suit would be dismissed as settled out of the Court. But, in contravention to the terms of compromise, she pursued the litigation and decree was passed in her favour and that when she filed E.P., he 4 came to know about the decree and there is no intentional delay or negligence in filing the aforesaid petitions and thus requested the Court to condone the delay of 724 days in filing the set aside petition and to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 24.06.2014. But, the plaintiff in her counter stated that on 03.03.2014, the defendant appeared through his counsel and the case is posted to 25.03.2014 for filing written statement and thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time for filing written statement i.e., 02.05.2014, 01.06.2014, 09.06.2014. On 12.06.2014 as the defendant called absent and as there was no representation on behalf of the defendant, he was set ex-parte on that day and the matter is posted to 19.06.2014 and the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and exhibits were marked and the matter is posted on 24.06.2014 for judgment. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel made any representation before the Court regarding settlement or payment of additional amount 5 of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff and no written statement was filed before the trial Court and two years after passing of the decree, when the defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, she filed E.P. and then the defendant came up with the aforesaid applications only to prolong the litigation. The defendant is residing at Chowtapally village, Mattampally Mandal and it is nearer to Huzurnagar town and weekly once he is contacting his counsel but he did not appear before the court and not filed his written statement within time. As such, the trial Court had rightly passed the ex-parte decree.
7. In a counter filed by the respondent-Ambati Saidamma, she stated that the petitioner filed caveat and appeared on 03.03.2014 and the case is posted for written statement and the matter is adjourned for several times and posted to 12.06.2014 and on that day the petitioner was set ex parte and posted to 6 19.06.2014. On that day she was examined as P.W.1 and decree was passed on 24.06.2014. She stated that no material was placed regarding additional payments for two years and thus the trial Court considering the material on record decreed the suit in her favour and rightly dismissed the applications. She filed E.P.No.6 of 2016 on 11.03.2016 to which the petitioner filed counter on 30.11.2016. The land in Sy.No.574 of an extent of Ac.2.30 guntas was allotted to her by the Tahsildar, Matampally vide Patta Filer No.12970 of 2005 dated 27.06.2005 and in Sy.No.882 in her favour and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and thus the trial Court decreed the suit on merits in her favour and as per Letter No.9 of 2019 dated 12.08.2019 of the Tahsildar to the District Collector the name of the petitioner was not shown as occupant in Sy.No.574. She further stated that interim directions were granted in W.P.No.12594 of 2020 dated 7 15.09.2020 and in C.C.No.24 of 2022 and notices were also issued to the contemnors on 28.01.2022 and it is pending and thus requested the Court to dismiss the revision.
8. The trial Court, considering the arguments of both the counsel, observed that there is no evidence regarding payment of Rs.2,00,000/- for closure of the suit. When once the defendant appeared before this Court, it is for him to file written statement in time. In spite of granting sufficient opportunity, he did not file written statement and he was set ex-parte and he filed the aforesaid applications after 724 days i.e., more than two years and there is no sufficient cause to allow the applications and no supporting evidence was filed and accordingly dismissed both the applications.
9. The petitioner herein filed copy of the agreement of sale dated 31.01.2011 and also receipts dated 13.03.2011, 16.09.2011 and 01.03.2012 regarding 8 payment of Rs.60,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively. The agreement of sale was entered for sale of the land admeasuring 3 acres in Sy.No.574 for Rs.7,95,000/-. Another document is also filed regarding payment of Rs.6,95,000/- and balance of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be paid on 20.09.2014.
10. In the case on hand, the notice was served to the petitioner herein and he engaged the counsel but he could not file written statement in spite of granting sufficient adjournments but he stated that he entered into compromise with the plaintiff and paid Rs.2,00,000/- with the intervention of the elders and he was under the impression that the plaintiff had withdraws the suit and he only came to know about the ex-parte order after filing of the E.P. He has not filed receipt regarding payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and it was clearly mentioned that he has to pay balance of Rs.1,00,000/-. It seems that as he failed to pay the balance within time the plaintiff filed the suit in the 9 year 2014 and the said suit is filed only for perpetual injunction. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner herein that valuable rights of the parties are involved is not tenable. If at all, the petitioner had paid Rs.2,00,000/- in pursuance of the mediation before the elders, he might have brought it to the notice of the trial Court during pendency of the proceedings, but he never appeared before the Court and made any representation and not even filed the receipt for the said amount. He simply kept quiet during pendency of the proceedings and in spite of granting sufficient opportunity the petitioner, he has not filed written statement, as such, the trial Court, considering all the facts, had rightly dismissed both the applications and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court. No costs.
10
12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J Date:20.09.2022 Prv