Makkapati Siva Nagendramma vs Dasari Sarojini
2022 Latest Caselaw 985 AP

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.912 of 2020

ORDER:-

      The 1st respondent herein had filed a suit bearing

O.S.No.350 of 2009 before the Senior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet against the deceased/2nd respondent herein and

the petitioner herein, for declaration of ownership over suit

schedule property, and for the consequential relief of delivery

of possession. The 2nd respondent and the petitioner after

receiving notices, contested the matter by filing a written

statement. This suit was transferred to the I Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Guntur and renumbered as O.S.No.227 of 2010.

Subsequently, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli

was established and the suit was again transferred to the

Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli and renumbered as O.S.No.37

of 2013. It appears that the trial Court proceeded with the

trial of the suit after setting the defendants ex parte and

passed a decree and judgment in favour of the 1st respondent

on 14.06.2013. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application

for setting aside the said ex parte judgment and decree, with a

delay of 530 days. The petitioner had also filed I.A.No.287 of

2015 for condoning the said delay of 530 days in filing the

application for setting aside the ex parte order.

2. The contention of the petitioner, in the said

application was that she had defended her suit and had filed

written statement after the suit had been transferred to the I

RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. However, she was

unaware of the subsequent transfer of the suit from the Court

of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge to the Court of the Senior

Civil Judge, Sattenapalli and she had not been informed about

the transfer of the case by her counsel. She further submits

that she had not visited the office of her counsel due to ill-

health and was unaware of the adjournments and stages of

the suit. She submits that on account of these developments

in the suit, she was unable to defend the suit in time and was

approaching the trial Court at the earliest point of time after

coming to know of the ex parte order passed against her.

3. The 1st respondent filed a counter stating that the

petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the transfer of suit as it

was an administrative action and was known to everybody.

4. After considering the submissions of both sides,

the trial Court had dismissed this application by way of an

order dated 27.02.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present

civil revision petition.

5. The trial Court took into account the record of the

court, which revealed that the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent had been set ex parte by the Senior Civil Judge,

Sattenapalli on 20.03.2013 and that the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent had filed I.A.No.382 of 2013 under Order IX Rule 7

of C.P.C for setting aside the said ex parte order dated

20.03.2013 and the same had been allowed on 01.04.2013.

RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020

However, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent did not appear

thereafter, and the trial Court had set the petitioners ex parte

and the judgment and decree came to be passed on

14.06.2013. In view of these facts, the trial Court refused to

accept the contentions of the petitioner that she was unaware

of the transfer of the suit and that she could not contact her

counsel on account of her ill-health. The trial Court also held

that the contention of the petitioner that she was suffering

from illness, could not be accepted as no material has been

placed before the trial Court to demonstrate the said illness.

6. Sri Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner had never engaged any

counsel in the Court of the senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli nor

did she move any application for setting aside an earlier ex

parte order. He submits that the deceased/2nd respondent

appears to have engaged a counsel. He further submits that

the record does not show any vakalat that is said to have been

filed by Sri Ch.Chandrasekhar, the counsel who is said to

have been engaged by the petitioner herein.

7. Heard Sri Alapati Rohini Srinivasa Murthy, who

contends that the version raised by the petitioner cannot be

accepted as none of this was raised earlier and no such

contention has even been recorded by the trial Court.

8. The contention of the petitioner was that she was

unaware of the transfer of the suit from Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. This

RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020

contention of the petitioner was disbelieved by the trial Court

on the ground that the petitioner had engaged a counsel had

even filed an application for setting aside an earlier ex parte

order. The petitioner contends that she never engaged any

lawyer nor she did file any application for setting aside the

earlier ex parte order. This issue has not been considered

before the trial Court. In the event it is demonstrated that

there is no vakalat which has been signed by the petitioner

and that no application has been filed on behalf of the

petitioner, she would be entitled for a fresh hearing on the

application for condonation of delay.

9. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to

set aside the order dated 27.02.2020 in I.A.No.287 of 2015

and remand the matter back to the trial Court for an

appropriate decision on the question of whether the petitioner

had been represented by a counsel before the trial Court after

the suit had been transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil

Judge, Sattenapalli.

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed

setting aside the order and decree dated 27.02.2020 and

I.A.No.287 of 2015 in O.S.No.37 of 2013 is remanded back to

the trial Court for an enquiry as to whether the petitioner had

engaged a counsel before the trial Court and had filed an

application for setting aside the earlier ex parte decree and

judgment dated 14.06.2013. If the trial Court arrives at a

conclusion, in favour of the petitioner, on the aforesaid issue,

RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020

it shall reconsider the application of the petitioner on the basis

of the material that may be placed before the trial Court by

either party. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil

Revision Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 23-02-2022 RJS

RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.912 of 2020

Date : 23.02.2022

RJS

RRR,J CRP.No.912 of 2020