HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.511, 513, 515 & 516 OF 2023
Date: 24.03.2023
C.R.P.No.511 of 2023:
Between:
Mahnoor ali Abbas, w/o. Ali Abbas,
Aged about 55 years, occu:Retd.Director,
R/o.22-1-920, Sultanpura, Hyderabad
and another.
.....Petitioners/petitioners/
Defendants 1 and 2
and
Mohammed Abdul Khadeer,
s/o. late Mohammed Abdul Qhader
alias Jani Miya, Aged about 57 years,
Occu: Business, r/o.H.No.13-5-371/B,
Taleem Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad
and others.
.....Respondents/plaintiff/
Defendants The Court made the following:
PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch 2 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.511, 513, 515 & 516 OF 2023 COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned counsel Sri P.Chandrashekar for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri Shaik Jilani for the respondent no.1.
2. These four Revisions are preferred against the Orders in respective I.As., filed under Section 148 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying the Court to receive the petitions vide S.R.Nos.2189/2017, 2191/2017, 2195/2017, 2192/2017, dated 24.08.2017, respectively, filed along with written statements by condoning the delay of 1972 days in the respective I.As.
3. On 05.01.2017, the right to file written statement by the defendants 1 and 2 was forfeited by the trial Court. On 24.08.2017 defendants 1 and 2 filed petitions under Section 151 of CPC to set aside the order dated 05.01.2017 filed along with written statements. The said petitions were returned with objections by the Section on 05.09.2017. Thereafter, issues were framed on 07.04.2021; plaintiff filed chief-affidavit; Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to record cross-
PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch 3 examination of P.W.1. On 04.01.2023, the Advocate- Commissioner filed report pertaining to cross-examination of P.W.1.
4. On the said date, learned counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 2 appeared before the Court and requested that petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 should be given opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1. Though right to file written statement was forfeited, the Court below directed the Advocate- Commissioner to record cross-examination of P.W.1 by counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 2 on 07.01.2023 at 11.30 a.m. and submit report by 09.01.2023. On 09.01.2023, the Advocate-Commissioner filed a Memo stating that on 07.01.2023 at 11.30 a.m., as directed by the plaintiff/P.W.1, counsel for the plaintiff and the Advocate-Commissioner were present at Commission Hall and waited till 12.30 Noon, but defendants 1 and 2 and their counsel did not turn up and the same was recorded.
5. The Court below observed that as suit is of the year 2016, and in spite of right to file written statement by the defendants 1 and 2 was forfeited on 05.01.2017, Court gave opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1, but defendants 1 and 2 failed to cross-
PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch 4 examine P.W.1 on the date and time fixed by the Court and, therefore, cross-examination of P.W.1 by the defendants 1 and 2 is treated as 'NIL' on 09.01.2023 and suit was posted for further plaintiff's evidence.
6. On 18.01.2023, the learned counsel for defendants reported that the Advocate-Commissioner has not informed them regarding cross-examination of P.W.1. This was not accepted by the trial Court. On detailed consideration of the petitions filed by the petitioners to receive the petitions vide S.R.Nos.2189/2017, 2191/2017, 2195/2017, 2192/2017, dated 24.08.2017, respectively,, along with written statements to condone delay of 1972 days were considered and having regard to the conduct of the parties, Court below declined to condone the delay in all four petitions.
7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, it is averred that due to various family problems, defendants could not give instructions to their counsel to prepare written statements to be filed in the Court. It is further averred in paragraph-5 of the affidavit that defendants gave instructions to their counsel and the learned counsel prepared the written statements along with the petitions and the same were filed in PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch 5 the Court on 24.08.2017 and the same were returned by the Office stating that petitions were filed with wrong provision of law and notices were not served on the other side counsel. Though learned counsel has taken back the petitions, they were not resubmitted and kept in the case bundles. This fact came to the knowledge of the defendants only after they saw the paper publication and immediately they tried to contract their counsel, but he was not available, as such they filed the Vakalat by engaging another Advocate.
8. Defendants have also taken the plea that due to Covid-19 pandemic, they could not approach their counsel and resubmit the petitions. This was considered by the trial Court and the trial Court found that defendants had sufficient time to resubmit the petitions much before upsurge of Covid-19 pandemic and therefore they could not take such defence since the Office raised the objections on 05.01.2017 i.e., much prior to Covid-19 pandemic. Having seen the conduct of the parties and having regard to the delay in prosecuting the matters, trial Court dismissed the petitions.
9. Learned counsel for petitioners sought to contend that written statements are filed long back and the plaintiff filed PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch 6 chief-examinations only in April, 2021. Therefore, by condoning the delay, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff and on the contrary, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if they are not permitted to defend by filing written statements. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Court in G.Satyanaraya vs. 1 M.Shankar .
10. From the reading of paragraph-10 of the said judgment, it is seen that there was latches on the part of the Advocate and the Court observed that due to the latches of learned Advocate, the party cannot be blamed and, therefore, the Court inclined to condone the delay. In the instant case, petitioners are not blaming the lawyer. Furthermore, in the instant cases, there is inordinate delay in prosecuting/representing the applications. Furthermore, as noticed by the trial Court, even though leave was granted by the trial Court, defendants have not appeared before the Advocate-Commissioner, when the date fixed, to cross-examine P.W.1. The Court below rightly rejected the applications having found that the defendants are dragging on the matters and are not interested in prosecuting the litigation properly.
1 MANU/AP/0064/2001 PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch 7
11. They are well considered Orders. I see no error in the decisions of the lower Court warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 24.03.2023 Kkm PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch 8 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.511, 513, 515 & 516 OF 2023 Date: 24.03.2023 kkm