Odela Komuraiah vs Mamidi Ravali
2021 Latest Caselaw 2820 Tel

           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1460 of 2021

                       Date:28.09.2021

Between:

Odela Komuraiah S/o.Komuraiah,
Aged 50 yrs, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o.Narsakkapally Village,
Parkal Mandal, Warangal District
                                           .....Petitioner

     And

Mamidi Ravali, W/o.Ramesh,
Aged 38 yrs, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o.Chinnkodepaka Village,
Regonda Mandal, Warangal District

                                           .....Respondent




The Court made the following:
                                 -2-


          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1460 of 2021

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order

dated 13.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.339 of 2015 in O.S.No.105 of

2011 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge at Parkal.

2. The respondent herein instituted O.S.No.105 of 2011 in the

Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Parkal praying to grant

decree of permanent injunction restraining the

petitioner/defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule

property is Ac.3.10 guntas in Sy.No.661/1 (New) (661 Old),

Rayaparthi Village, Parkal Mandal, Warangal District. On

31.12.2014 the suit was heard and reserved for judgment. On

19.01.2015 the judgment was pronounced granting the decree of

perpetual injunction against the petitioner. Seeking enforcement

of the decree, E.P.No.36 of 2015 was filed on 23.04.2015. After

receiving notice in the said E.P., petitioner herein moved

I.A.No.339 2015 to condone the delay of 123 days in filing the

petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 19.01.2015. By order

dated 13.02.2020, the said application was dismissed. This

revision is preferred challenging the order dated 13.02.2020.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner

was suffering from Jaundice and was taking traditional treatment

in the village and due to the deteriorating condition of Jaundice, he

could not immediately contact his lawyer and take steps to

prosecute the suit. Non-appearance on the dates fixed by the

Court and not undertaking cross-examination of Pw.1 and leading

evidence in defence was not deliberate and wilful, but was caused

due to the health condition of petitioner. Learned counsel submits

that petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land,

having purchased the same by way of unregistered sale deed and

his possession is acknowledged by the entire village. Therefore, he

submits that unless the exparte decree is set aside, opportunity to

cross-examine the plaintiff witness and to lead evidence is given,

grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.

4. From the docket proceedings placed before this Court, it is

seen that on 18.07.2014, plaintiff was examined as Pw.1 and

Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked on her behalf. After completion of the

evidence of plaintiff, defendant sought time for cross-examination.

At request of the defendant, the suit was adjourned to 30.07.2014.

On 30.07.2014, Pw.1 was called absent and therefore, the case

was adjourned to 22.08.2014. On 22.08.2014, a request was

made on behalf of the defendant for adjournment. The Court

granted adjournment to 18.09.2014 on payment of costs of

Rs.100/-. Again on 18.09.2014, adjournment was sought on

behalf of the defendant. The Court granted adjournment and

posted on 10.10.2014 on payment of costs of Rs.300/-. On

10.10.2014 neither the defendant nor his counsel was present.

Since there was no representation for the defendant, the cross-

examination was treated as Nil. Plaintiff counsel reported no

further evidence and therefore, the evidence on behalf of the

plaintiff was closed. The suit was adjourned to 07.11.2014 for

leading evidence on behalf of the defendant. On 07.11.2014 neither

the defendant nor his counsel was present. To give one opportunity

the suit was adjourned to 27.11.2014. On 27.11.2014 hearing was

deferred on payment of costs of Rs.100/-. On 11.12.2014 the

Officer was on leave, therefore, the suit was adjourned to

30.12.2014. On 30.12.2014 the Court noted that the cost as

ordered on the earlier date was not paid and there was no

representation for the defendant, therefore, the evidence on behalf

of the defendant was treated as Nil and suit was adjourned to

31.12.2014 for arguments.

5. The chronology of events discloses that much prior to the

judgment pronounced on 19.01.2015, the defendant was not

evincing interest to contest the suit. The delay in filing application

to set aside the exparte decree cannot be seen in isolation by

ignoring the chronology of events noted above. Further, though

petitioner was specifically contending that he was suffering from

Jaundice, therefore, he could not contact his advocate, no material

is placed before the trial Court nor before this Court to show that

he was suffering from Jaundice and was not able to move out of

place, where he was taking treatment and thus his absence was

not deliberate and wilful.

6. Having regard to the above facts and chronology of events,

the trial Court observed that no sufficient cause was shown by the

petitioner for his absence and in prosecuting the suit. Therefore,

disbelieving the story of petitioner for the delay in filing application

to set aside the exparte decree, the application to condone the

delay was dismissed.

7. Having regard to the facts noted above, I do not see any error

committed by the trial Court warranting interference in exercise of

revisional jurisdiction. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly,

dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 28th September, 2021 Rds

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1460 of 2021

Date:28.09.2021

Rds