HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
C.R.P.Nos.1055, 1056, 1926 and 1932 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
1. C.R.P.No.1055 of 2021 is filed against the order dated
24.06.2020 passed in I.A.No.72 of 2020 in I.A.No.50 of 2019
in O.S.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional
District Judge, Siddipet.
2. C.R.P.No.1056 of 2021 is filed against the order dated
24.06.2021 passed in I.A.No.73 of 2020 in I.A.No.49 of 2019
in O.S.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional
District Judge, Siddipet.
3. C.R.P.No.1926 of 2021 is filed against the order dated
24.06.2021 passed in I.A.No.73 of 2020 in I.A.No.49 of 2019
in O.S.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional
District Judge, Siddipet.
4. C.R.P.No.1932 of 2021 is filed against the order dated
24.06.2021 passed in I.A.No.72 of 2020 in I.A.No.50 of 2019
in O.S.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional
District Judge, Siddipet.
5. A common judgment dated 23.03.2018 was passed by
the trial Court in O.S.Nos.13, 14 and 15 of 2015. The trial
PSS,J
2 CRP_1055,1056,1926
And 1932_2021
Court observed that all the three suits are filed for declaration
of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits regarding
separate suit property by separate plaintiffs. K.Ravi Shankar
Srinivas (plaintiff in O.S.No.13 of 2015), K.Satish (plaintiff in
O.S.No.14 of 2015) are two sons of K.Vijayalaxmi (plaintiff in
O.S.No.15 of 2015) and K.Rama Rao, who is her husband.
They purchased respective lands under separate registered
sale deeds. All the three suits are concerned with the mother
and her two sons. The plaint averments in all the suits are
one and the same except few additions and description of the
defendants. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.13 of 2015 is
different set of defendants. The defendants in O.S.Nos.14 and
15 of 2015 are one and the same. In the suit it was clearly
observed that in O.S.No.13 of 2015 summons were served on
Defendant Nos.2 and 3 but, there were absent and set
ex-parte. Summons were served on the first defendant by way
of publication in Deccan Chronicle English Daily Newspaper,
Hyderabad Edition on 11.12.2016. The first defendant was
absent and remained ex-parte. In O.S.Nos.14 and 15 of 2015
summons were served on the first defendant and he appeared
in person but failed to file the written statement and therefore
set ex-parte. Summon were served on the second defendant by
way of publication in Deccan Chronicle English Daily
PSS,J
3 CRP_1055,1056,1926
And 1932_2021
Newspaper, Hyderabad Edition on 11.12.2016 but, he
remained absent and set ex-parte. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are
brothers and the third defendant is the son of the second
defendant. They are members of one family. The trial Court
after considering the arguments of both sides decreed the
suits and declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of
the property and also directed Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to
vacate the suit schedule property and apart from that they are
directed to pay mesne profits.
6. One Girish Kumar on behalf of the first defendant firm
i.e., M/s.Mangalam Business Ventures filed an application
stating that he received notice on 18.02.2019 from the
Tahsildar, Manoharabad Mandal, Medak District, with the
direction to appear on 23.03.2019 along with supported
documents. K.Vijayalaxmi, W/o.K.V.K.Rama Rao filed a
petition contending that as per the judgment in O.S.No.15 of
2015 dated 23.03.2018 her name is to be incorporated in the
revenue records for an extent of Ac.5.31 guntas in Sy.No.296
and Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.297. He requested the Tahsildar
to grant time for filing counter as the decree is passed
ex-parte, but the Tahsildar rejected the same on 23.02.2019.
He verified the "A" dairy maintained in the Court and came to
know about the common judgment dated 23.03.2018 in all
PSS,J
4 CRP_1055,1056,1926
And 1932_2021
the suits i.e., O.S.Nos.13, 14 and 15 of 2015. On refreshing
his memory, he recollected that he appeared in person before
the Court on 18.09.2015 and sought time to engage the
Advocate and the matter was adjourned to 09.11.2015. On
that date he appeared in person and he was informed that
Presiding Officer is on transfer and the next date of the
adjournment will be informed by way of notice. But, to his
surprise he was set ex-parte for non-filing of written statement
on 10.08.2016. He further stated that he is the absolute
owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.23.00 guntas of
land in Sy.Nos.298 and 299 and Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.296
and 297. He purchased the same under a registered sale deed
dated 08.02.2010 from the Official Liquidator. Originally M/s.
Satya Steel Strips Private Limited formerly known as
M/s.Larsven Engineers Private Limited acquired the said
property under five registered sale deeds from
M.Rangaiah and others. Later, M/s.Satya Steel Strips Limited
went into liquidation process. Official Liquidator was
appointed and the properties were taken over by the official
liquidator and he was directed to alienate the same.
Accordingly the Official Liquidator gave an advertisement
fixing the set up value as Rs.20,13,00,000/- for land and
Rs.55,00,000/- for machinery, structures and sheds. Auction
PSS,J
5 CRP_1055,1056,1926
And 1932_2021
was conducted and M/s.Mahalaxmi Profiles became
successful bidder for Rs.11,10,000/- and he nominated the
first defendant as official liquidator and executed sale deed in
his favour. The first defendant mutated his name in the
relevant revenue records. He further stated that one Nagamma
and others filed E.P.NO.27 of 1998 in pursuance of the decree
in O.S.No.7 of 1987 and it was allowed in their favour. After
delivery of possession to the said Nagamma and others,
Official Liquidator preferred C.A.No.882 of 1999 and it was
allowed on 19.04.2005. The appeal was preferred in O.S.No.32
of 2005 and it was dismissed. Then C.A.No.368 of 2010 was
filed which was also dismissed. Plaintiff filed speculative
proceedings in O.S.Nos.13 and 15 of 2005 to deprive his
legitimate rights. Though he appeared before the Court on
18.09.2015, no sufficient opportunity was given to him. He
was set ex-parte on 10.08.2015. Decree was passed against
him on 23.03.2018. He came to know about the decree on
20.02.2019 and he received notice from the Tahsildar and
thus requested the Court to condone the delay of 350 days in
filing the petition to set aside the judgment and decree dated
23.03.2018 in O.S.No.14 of 2015.
7. In the counter filed by the first respondent he stated
that the second defendant is no other than the paternal uncle PSS,J 6 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021 of the petitioner and they are all joint family members and doing joint business. Petitioner and second respondent was watching the court proceedings and both of them are fully aware of the paper publication and they intentionally evaded the Court process and they encroached the suit schedule property. Therefore, he filed suit in the year 2015 but I.A. is filed on 08.03.2019 i.e. after four years from the date of personal attendance in the Court. Official Liquidator executed registered sale deed on 29.01.2010 without survey and vague boundaries. The Court Bailiff, as per the order in E.P.No.27 of 1998, delivered possession of the land admeasuring Ac.9.19 guntas and Ac.2.20 guntas which is in illegal possession of Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 out of Ac.18.38 guntas. Petitioner failed to explain the reasons for the delay as he appeared in the Court on 18.09.2015 and there is no justification for condoning the delay and that he willfully neglected to participate in the proceedings though he is aware of the consequences of non-appearance. He filed suit in the year 2015, the first defendant was set ex parte on 10.08.2016, his chief-examination was filed on 25.01.2017 and the judgment was delivered on 23.03.2018. Thereafter execution petition was filed on 08.02.2019 and the litigation is pending from 1984. He further stated that he is ready to co-operate for PSS,J 7 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021 demarcation on their respective lands with the Survey Authorities in execution petition proceedings as he is not denying title of petitioners in Sy.Nos. 296 and 297 and petitioner is not denying his title and thus, requested the Court to dismiss the petition.
8. The trial Court considering the argument of both sides observed that his predecessor in office substantially dealt with the subject matter and he cannot re-appreciate the same. The delay of 350 days was not properly explained and petition filed by him lacks bona fides, due diligence and there are laches on the part of petitioner and accordingly dismissed the application.
9. Challenging the said dismissal order dated 15.11.2019, C.R.P.Nos.1055 and 1056 of 2021 are filed. Petitioners also filed review application before the trial Court and the said application was also dismissed on 24.06.2021. In the said order it was held that marking of the documents is the duty of the Court and it cannot be considered as clerical error so also right of review under Order XLVII R/w 114 of C.P.C is subjected to many limitations and conditions and that there are no new facts or error apparent on the face of the record. Order was reserved on 18.09.2019 and pronounced on PSS,J 8 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021 15.11.2019. As per the docket order dated 01.11.2019, the matter was adjourned for hearing the arguments of the respondent and then posted for orders on 15.11.2019. When once the Court has given a specific date for passing of the judgment there is no need to give separate notice to the parties. Notice is to be given only when the judgment is reserved. With the above reasons, the reviews were dismissed. Challenging the review orders, CRP.Nos.1932 of 2021 and 1926 of 2021 are filed before this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant in the suit filed written arguments stating that originally M/s.Satya Steel Strips Private Limited was the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.28.30 guntas and it purchased the same from M.Gangaiah and others for a valid sale consideration through five different registered sale deeds. M/s.Satya Steel Strips Private Limited went into liquidation process and wound up and as per the orders of this Court, Official Liquidator was appointed and all the assets were transferred and vested with this Court and possession was taken over by the Official Liquidator. As per the directions of this Court, the Official Liquidator was directed to alienate all the properties including the schedule property of M/s.Satya Steel Strips Private Limited by way of auction and in the said auction PSS,J 9 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021 M/s.Mahalaxmi Profiles Private Limited was declared as successful bidder and the bid was confirmed in its favour and it nominated the first defendant and the Official Liquidator executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and also delivered possession along with machinery and sheds fixed in it. The Tahsildar, Manoharabad Mandal, after due enquiry passed mutation proceedings mutating the name of the first defendant in revenue records.
11. K.Nagamma and others filed O.S.No.7 of 1987 and obtained decree in their favour and also filed E.P.No.27 of 1998 and it was allowed in their favour and when tried to deliver possession to them, the Official Liquidator preferred C.A.No.882 of 1999 in C.P.No.23 of 1988 before this Court on the ground that leave of this Court was not obtained and as such entire proceedings are void and would not create any right in favour of the persons referred above and it was allowed by the Company Court. Aggrieved by the said order, K.Nagamma and others preferred an appeal before this Court in OSA No.32 of 2005 and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal confirming possession of the Official Liquidator and as such the Official Liquidator was in absolute possession and at no point of time any third party was in possession of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff PSS,J 10 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021 was also aware of the same but seems to have purchased the property without proper title to his predecessor and thus, he is not a bona fide purchaser. In view of dismissal of OSA No.32 of 2005, K.Nagamma and others filed C.A.No.364 of 2010 in C.P.No.23 of 1988 before this Court seeking them to declare as owners of land admeasuring Ac.18.38 guntas in Sy.Nos.297 and 297, which is not part of the suit schedule property. This Court after a detailed enquiry dismissed C.A. and held that the relief claimed in the Company Application is wholly misconceived. This Court also directed if K.Nagamma and others assert their title to the said extent of Ac.18.38 guntas which does not form part of Ac.28.30 guntas and with reference to which there is no dispute, they shall be free to initiate appropriate legal proceedings in respect thereof. But the Court below without appreciating the above facts passed ex parte common judgment depriving the rights of the petitioner over their rightfully purchased property of Ac.28.30 guntas. CRP No.1055 of 2021 is filed against the orders passed in I.A.No.50 of 2019 in O.S.No.14 of 2015 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 350 days and to set aside the common judgment passed in O.S.Nos.13, 14 and 15 of 2015 dated 23.03.2018. The first respondent filed the above suit for declaration of title, recovery PSS,J 11 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021 of possession and for mesne profits which was decreed ex parte. Learned counsel by relying upon citations submitted that the concept of explaining the delay of each day was diluted by later decisions of this Court. He also submitted that if the delay is computed from 13.02.2020 after excluding the period of limitation as per the directions of the Supreme Court is only 29 days in respect of CRP No.1055 of 2021 and there is no delay in CRP No.1932 of 2022. Learned counsel further submitted that though his client filed several documents showing right, title and interest in respect of the subject property, none of the documents were considered and marked and if this Court does not come to the rescue of the petitioner, it would suffer grave irreparable loss and thus requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.
12. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to file written statement and contest the matter, the matter can be disposed on merits and thus, a reasonable opportunity is to be provided to the petitioner.
13. Perusal of the record shows that after the service of summons, the petitioner appeared before the Court in person and sought time to engage the counsel. Even on the next date PSS,J 12 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021 of adjournment, he could not engage the counsel and later he did not appear before the Court and contested the matter. The petitioner simply stated that as he came to know that the Presiding Officer was under transfer, he thought that another notice will serve upon him and thus he could not pursue the litigation. The reason stated by the petitioner is absurd and when once he appeared before the Court he has to pursue the litigation with due diligence, but he failed to do so. He neither engaged the counsel nor appeared before the Court. As per the observation of the Presiding Officer in the judgment that summons were duly served on the petitioner and as he could not appear, he was set ex-parte. The petitioner kept quiet till passing of the judgment and simply stated that he came to know about the judgment only when he received notice after the filing of the E.P. The abnormal delay of nearly one year was not explained properly and there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay. Perusal of the record clearly shows that the petitioner herein was watching the proceedings without participating in it willfully and came up with this petition after delivery of possession in the execution petition only with an intention to drag on the proceedings and the said application to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed by this Court on 15.09.2019. Again, he preferred review and it was also PSS,J 13 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021 dismissed on 24.06.2021 and further he preferred these revisions against both the orders only with an intention to drag on the proceedings.
14. In a case law reported in PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL (DEAD) BY LRS. V/s. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT1 it was held as follows:
"the object of law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance and deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches"
15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, all the revision petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed with costs.
16. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondents within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order.
17. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed in the light of this final order.
___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.
21st SEPTEMBER, 2022.
1 (2008) 17 SCC 448 PSS,J 14 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021 SS