Telangana High Court
S.V. Choudhary, Visakhapatnam. vs M/S. Mahalakshmi Leasing Ltd., Secbad. ... on 3 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.204 of 2009
Mr.Bharath Chandra Madas, learned counsel representing Mr.Srinivasa Rao Boddaluri,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order dated 06.11.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad ('Trial Court') in I.A.No.616 of 2006 in O.S.No.30 of 2000, filed by the appellant under Order IX Rule 13 and Order XVII Rule 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2006.
2. The appellant is the defendant No.4 in the Suit (O.S.No.30 of 2000) filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.28,47,967.75 ps., from the defendant Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally along with future interest @ 24% per annum and costs.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant claims that after the Trial Court passed the ex parte decree in the Suit on 30.06.2006, the appellant filed I.A.No.616 of 2006 on 29.07.2006 for setting aside the said ex parte decree. Counsel submits that the appellant's Advocates prepared a Written Statement denying the involvement of the appellant/defendant No.4 and obtained the signatures of the 2 MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.204 of 2009 appellant on the Written Statement. The appellant was later informed that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 remained ex parte and that the defendant No.4 was the sole contesting defendant in the Suit. The appellant's Advocates also gave an impression to the appellant that the Suit was misconceived and the appellant has a good chance of success in the Suit.
4. According to counsel, the appellant was assured by his Advocates at all material times. However on 26.06.2006, the appellant suddenly received information that the Suit was posted for judgment on 30.06.2006, on which date the matter was closed without any representation on behalf of the appellant. The appellant thereafter made serious allegations against his erstwhile Advocates with regard to forging his signatures on the affidavits and puts the entire blame on his erstwhile Advocates for the non-representation.
5. The above submissions would also be borne out from the Affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant in the Application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2006.
6. The Proceeding Sheets show that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was not represented in the Appeal. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are 3 MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.204 of 2009 proforma parties to the Appeal, as reflected in the Cause Title. The proof of service shows that the notice sent to the respondent No.1 was returned as 'not claimed'.
7. The Proceeding Sheets further reflect that the appellant was granted interim stay of execution of the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2006 by a Co-ordinate Bench on 06.03.2009 and the stay is continuing till date. The Appeal was listed before a Co-ordinate Bench on 06.08.2025 whereby the Co-ordinate Bench directed the matter to be listed under the caption 'For Dismissal'. The Appeal was listed before this Bench on 20.08.2025 on which date the appellant remained un-represented. On the returnable date, counsel appearing for the appellant sought for time. The matter was thereafter heard on 22.08.2025 and was reserved for Judgment.
8. Since no one appeared for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, we have considered the case of the appellant and perused the material on record for adjudication of the instant Appeal. We have also carefully perused the impugned order dated 06.11.2008.
9. The primary point for adjudication is whether the impugned order dismissing the appellant's Application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2006 calls for interference. 4
MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.204 of 2009
10. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order records the relevant facts which culminated in dismissal of the appellant's Application. The facts as recorded by the Trial Court are stated below.
(a) An ex parte order was passed in the Suit against the appellant/defendant No.4 on 28.03.2000 which was later set aside by order dated 18.12.2000 passed in I.A.No.1842 of 2000 and consequently the appellant filed his Written Statement.
(b) On 03.12.2004, the appellant filed his Chief Affidavit as PW.1 in I.A.No.616 of 2006 and Advocate Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of both sides on 23.03.2005 and the Commissioner Report was filed on 25.10.2005.
(c) The appellant/defendant No.4 was again set ex parte on 27.12.2005 and the matter was posted to 30.12.2025 for judgment. The judgment was pronounced on that date.
(d) The ex parte decree was set-aside on 08.03.2006 on a condition of the appellant cross-examining the 5 MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.204 of 2009 respondent No.1/plaintiff on 14.03.2006. The appellant failed to comply with the said condition and the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 14.03.2006 and the matter was posted for defendant's evidence. The defendant's evidence was closed on 17.03.2006 and the matter was posted to 27.03.2006 for judgment.
(e) The appellant/defendant No.4 filed I.A.Nos.235 and 349 of 2006 to reopen the evidence of PW.1 and recall PW.1, respectively. Both the I.As were dismissed on 23.06.2006 and decree was passed on 30.06.2006.
(f) The appellant made serious allegations against his counsel including of forging the appellant's signature in I.A.Nos.235 and 349 of 2006. However, the appellant failed to avail of the opportunity given to him for cross-examining PW.1 (plaintiff in the Suit).
(g) The appellant/PW.1 (petitioner in I.A.No.616 of 2006) in his cross-examination admitted to failing to appear before the Court after filing the Written Statement and passing of decree on 30.06.2006. 6
MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.204 of 2009
(h) The impugned order also records that the evidence of appellant as PW.1 shows that he did not file any correspondence to prove that he consulted his Advocate regarding the progress of the case, as was contended in the Affidavit. Further the cross- examination of PW.1/appellant also shows that he did not file any complaint against his erstwhile advocate for forgery or otherwise. Moreover, PW.2 (appearing for the appellant/defendant No.4) stated that he informed PW.1 on 26.06.2006 that the case was posted for judgment on 30.06.2006. However, the appellant chose not to appear before the Court for taking necessary steps.
(i) The Trial Court found that the appellant had denied signatures in the two I.As. only for the purpose of filing I.A.No.616 of 2006 for setting aside ex parte decree and that the conduct of the appellant revealed that he was not diligent in contesting the Suit. The Trial Court accordingly concludes that the appellant's absence was intentional.
7
MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.204 of 2009
(j) The Trial Court hence did not give any weightage to Exhibits A.1 (Notice issued to erstwhile Advocate of the appellant), A.2 (Reply Notice) and A.3 (Postal Cover), filed on behalf of the appellant/defendant No.4 for the reason that the said Exhibits were filed by the appellant only as an afterthought.
(k) The Trial Court accordingly proceeded to dismiss I.A.No.616 of 2006 which was filed by the appellant for setting aside decree dated 30.06.2006.
11. We have considered the reasons given by the Trial Court in dismissing the appellant's Application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2006. The impugned order contains clear reasons for dismissing the appellant's Application. The narration of events in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order shows that the appellant was given several opportunities to contest the Suit but failed to show any diligence even thereafter.
12. The first ex parte order dated 28.03.2000 was set aside on 08.12.2000 permitting the appellant to file Written Statement. Even after being given an opportunity the appellant did not take any steps to contest the Suit and was hence set ex parte on 27.12.2005. The 8 MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.204 of 2009 Judgment pronounced thereafter on 30.12.2005 was also set aside on 08.03.2006 and the appellant again failed to avail of this opportunity. We do not wish to repeat the fact since they have already been narrated above.
13. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings given by the Trial Court since the narration of events has been taken from the docket proceedings before the Trial Court. Moreover, we find that the appellant failed to prove any of the serious allegations made against his erstwhile Advocates with regard to forgery of his signatures. The cross-examination of PW.1 also contains several admissions with regard to the appellant's lack of diligence in contesting the Suit.
14. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the appellant are not corroborated from the records. It is also significant that the appellant has been enjoying interim stay of execution of the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2006 on and from 06.03.2009 i.e., for the last 16 years. The Proceeding Sheets in the present Appeal also show that the appellant has not shown any interest in pursuing the Appeal after obtaining interim stay and is enjoying the same since 06.03.2009 onwards.
9
MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.204 of 2009
15. We accordingly do not find any merit in the Appeal or any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.11.2008.
16. CMA.No.204 of 2009 is accordingly dismissed for the above reasons. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Interim order dated 06.03.2009 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 3rdSeptember, 2025.
BMS