Shaik Shafi vs Muddapati Ravichandra
2024 Latest Caselaw 8871 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8871 AP
Judgement Date : 25 September, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Shaik Shafi vs Muddapati Ravichandra on 25 September, 2024

 APHC010706292022
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                     [3470]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

          WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
                TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                         PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 486/2022

Between:

Shaik Shafi                                                  ...APPELLANT

                                            AND

Muddapati Ravichandra                                      ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

     1. O M R LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Respondent:

     1. A PADMA

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

- (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar representing M/s.OMR Law Firm,

learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Ms.A.Padma, learned counsel appears through virtual mode and

submits that the respondent has taken back the file from her but she is still appearing because her name is shown in the cause list and her power has not

been withdrawn.

3. This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of Code of Civil Procedure

(CPC) challenging the common order dated 18.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.343

of 2020 in O.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of I Additional District Judge,

Anantapur District, Ananthapuramu.

4. The appellant is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed

the suit for refund of advance amount with interest based on sale agreement

dated 28.08.2015. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 24.04.2018. For setting

aside the ex-parte decree, the appellant filed I.A.No.343 of 2020 under Order

9 Rule 13 CPC, along with I.A.No.113 of 2020 for condonation of delay under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. By the common order dated 18.11.2022, both the applications were

rejected holding that the petitioner could not show sufficient cause for the

delay in filing the applications.

6. Challenging the common order, in I.A.No.113 of 2020, the appellant

filed CRP.No.134 of 2023, which was allowed by the order dated 10.03.2023,

after hearing both sides. The operative portion in para 10 of the order reads as

under:-

"10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in Interlocutory Application No.113 of 2020 in Original Suit No.19 of 2017 is set aside and thereby condoning the delay of 548 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, subject to condition of the petitioner herein/defendant paying costs of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent herein/plaintiff within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."

7. The cause shown for condonation of delay as also for setting aside the

ex-parte decree is the same. Consequently, in view of the order dated

10.03.2023, the common order passed in I.A.No.343 of 2020 cannot stand.

The cause shown is sufficient.

8. The Civil Miscellaneous appeal is allowed. The common order dated

18.11.2022 in I.A.No.343 of 2020 is set aside. I.A.No.343 of 2020 stands

allowed. Consequently, the ex-parte decree dated 24.04.2018 is also set

aside.

9. Let the learned I Additional District Judge, Anantapur District at

Ananthapuramu, shall proceed to decide the suit afresh in accordance with

law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of Six (06) months, as the

suit is of the year 2015, without granting unnecessary adjournment to the