Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sheik Hasan Ali vs Abrar Khan Durrani on 30 November, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.C.R.P.No.2771 of 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
ORDER
No DATE Note
08 30.11.2023 RNT,J
1. 1. Heard Sri P.Raja Sekhar, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed
O.S.No.97 of 2009 pending in the Court of
III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, for
cancellation of the registered sale deeds dated
25.04.2005 and for other reliefs. The defendants
1 to 4 and defendant 8 (D1 to D4 & D8) were set
ex parte on 23.08.2011. D2 to D4 filed
I.A.No.600 of 2011 to set aside the ex parte
order which was allowed by order dated
27.01.2012 on condition to file written
statement on payment of cost of Rs.200/- by
08.02.2012. The costs were paid and a memo
was filed by the said defendants under Rule 125
of the Civil Rules of practice as the suit
documents were not served, the written
statement could not be filed. For extension of a
period to file a written statement, I.A.No.62 of
2012 was filed which was rejected by order
dated 08.02.2012.
Contd...
3. Challenging the said order, D2 to
D4 filed CRP No.2232 of 2012 which was
allowed by this Court by judgment dated
29.10.2019. The order dated 08.02.2012 passed
in I.A.No.62 of 2012 was set aside and a
direction was given to the 1st respondent-
plaintiff to serve the entire suit documents on
the defendants/petitioners within a specified
time with further direction to the
defendants/petitioners to file written statement
within a period of four (04) weeks from the date
of receipt of suit documents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the said order was received by the
Trial Court on 29.11.2022. It could not be
received previously due to the Covid-19
pandemic. He submits that, on 25.03.2019,
during chief examination of PW1, he filed 21
documents but the same were not served to D1
to D4 & D8. The suit was adjourned to
12.04.2019 after marking the documents for
trial on 29.03.2019 for cross-examination.
5. On 12.04.2019, a memo was filed
by the present petitioners praying time for
submitting objections for marking documents.
D1 also filed I.A.No.1477 of 2019 to set aside
the ex parte order against him which was
Contd...
allowed on 22.10.2019. D1 filed a written
statement. Inspite of the order of this Court
dated 29.10.2019, the suit documents were not
served on the petitioners/D2 to D4. On
09.12.2022, the Trial Court directed the
petitioners to obtain certified copies with liberty
to collect the costs of certified copies along with
suit costs. On 18.01.2023, D2 & D3 filed
written statement. On 20.06.2023, a memo was
also filed by D2, D3, D11 & D12 stating that no
opportunity was given to them in examination of
PW1 upon which, the Trial Court directed the 1st
respondent/plaintiff to supply copy of the chief
affidavit of PW1 to D2 to D4.
6. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1060 of
2023 to de-exhibit Exs A1 to A21 which were
filed by the plaintiff during the chief
examination and were so marked on
20.03.2019. I.A.No.1060 of 2023 has been
dismissed by order dated 15.09.2023.
Challenging the said order, the present Civil
Revision Petition is preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that once the order to proceed ex parte
against the present petitioners was set aside on
27.01.2012 subject to condition to file written
statement and the application for extension of
time to comply with the condition having been
rejected on 08.02.2012 but this order having Contd...
been set aside by this Court in C.R.P.No.2232 of
2012 on 29.10.2019, the petitioners/defendants
are entitled to be relegated to the position which
existed on the date of the order to proceed ex
parte. Since the examination of PW1 and the
marking of the documents took place during
that period, after the aforesaid subsequent
orders the documents that had been exhibited,
required to be de-exhibited and fresh
consideration required to be made due
opportunity to the petitioners with respect to
those documents Exs 1 to 21, in view of the
law as laid down in the case of Sangram Singh
v. Election Tribunal Kotah & Anr1,
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the rejection of the
petitioners' application is not justified and is
contrary to the settled legal position.
9. The matter requires consideration.
10. Issue notice to the 1st
respondent/plaintiff.
11. Respondents 2 to 11 are the
defendants. Consequently, issuance of notice to
respondents 2 to 11 is dispensed with for the
present.
12. In addition to the normal mode of Contd...
AIR 1955 SCC 425
service, the petitioners shall serve the 1st
respondent/plaintiff, through registered post
with acknowledgement due and file proof of
service in the Registry.
13. At the request of the learned
counsel for the petitioners, they may serve the
notice on the counsel of the 1st
respondent/plaintiff appearing before the Trial
Court.
14. The counter affidavit may be filed
within four (04) weeks.
15. List on January, 2024.
16. Till the next date of listing, further
proceedings in O.S.No.97 of 2009 pending in the
Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada,
shall remain stayed.
__________
RNT, J
RKS
