N.Rami Reddy vs K.Usha,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2189 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2292 of 2017
ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order dated

20.02.2017 in I.A.No.1081 of 2010 in I.A.No.1350 of 2010 in

O.S.No.1578 of 2009 passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The petitioner is the defendant No.5 in O.S.No.1578 of 2099.

The suit was filed by the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs for partition

and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

The respondents No.3 to 6 are the defendants No.1 to 4 in the suit.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Court below passed

preliminary decree on 30.04.2010 for non-appearance of his counsel.

The petitioner filed I.A.No.1350 of 2010 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to

set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010.

The petitioner/defendant No.5 and his counsel were called absent and

under order dated 08.10.2015, the petition was dismissed. Thereafter,

I.A.No.1081 of 2015 was filed to set aside the dismissal order dated

08.10.2015 in I.A.No.1350 of 2010. The said petition also came to be

dismissed under impugned order dated 20.02.2017 on the ground that

the petitioner/defendant No.5 has not disclosed in what manner he has

interest in the suit property; the petitioner has not substantiated his

right over the suit property; the petitioner did not file written

statement and did not contest the suit after entering appearance in the

main suit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendants

No.1 to 4 in the suit colluded with the plaintiffs and allowed ex parte

decree to be passed. The petitioner has got substantial interest in the

suit property. The petitioner has shown justifiable reasons for setting

aside ex parte order dated 08.10.2015 in I.A.No.1350 of 2010.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the

order of the Court below does not suffer from any error of law and

jurisdiction and there are no merits in the revision petition.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The petitioner is arrayed as defendant No.5 in the suit. There is

an allegation in the plaint that the petitioner/defendant No.5 and the

defendant No.4 tried to interfere with the plaintiffs over the suit

schedule property. Though it is stated that the defendant Nos.4 and 5

are not family members, yet the relief of partition was sought against

them. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not have any

interest in the suit property. As the suit is in respect of immovable

property and relief sought for is partition and separate possession,

this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order in

I.A.No.1081 of 2015 dated 20.02.2017 and thereby permit the

petitioner to contest the application in I.A.No.1350 of 2010 on merits.

8. The civil revision petition is allowed subject to payment of costs

quantified at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), out of

which Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be paid to the

Bar Association, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be paid to the Legal Services

Authority, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, within a period of three

(3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J July 23, 2021/DSK