S B H, Rep By Is G V S S Chalapathi Rao, ... vs Yelugam Veera Swamy Stiatrany, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3734 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                     C.R.P. No.3609 of 2016

ORDER:

Learned counsel for the petitioner present.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in

I.A.No.37/2015 in O.S.No.52 of 2002, dated 11.09.2015.

Petitioner herein is D5 in the suit in O.S.No.52 of 2012, which

was filed for the recovery of amount. After receiving the

summons, he made appearance on 22.03.2002, but he was set

exparte on 15.04.2022. Petitioner stated that he was served

with a copy of the plaint and the copies of documents were not

served upon him as the originals were filed before the consumer

redressal forum. He was transferred to Warangal and he could

not intimate the particulars to his successors. Even according

to the plaintiff he has no specific case against D5. As the bank

considering the request of plaintiff sent all the papers to D2 for

handing over the same to D1 on payment of amount to enable

D1 to receive the goods from D3, there was no negligence or

deficiency of service on his part.

CRP.No.3609of 2016

3. Admittedly D2 did not send the amount to the S.B.H.,

Warangal branch inspite of reminders. As such, the question of

payment of amount by the Bank does not arise. Suit was

transferred to Senior civil Judge's court, Jangaon. He came to

know about the case only when he received notice in EP

No.2/2015. As the EP was filed for arrest, he could not contest

the case. He filed an application to set aside the judgment and

decree along with written statement and requested to condone

the delay of 245 days. In a counter filed by the

respondent/plaintiff, it was stated that after examining several

witnesses decree was passed in the year 2014, i.e. after 12

years. As she kept quiet during the pendency of the suit and

moreover the delay is not 245 days, but it is 315 days and thus

requested the Court to dismiss the application.

4. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions held

that the bank will have a separate legal panel of advocates.

Therefore, merely because the branch manager did not inform

regarding the said panel of advocates, as such, the reasons

stated by the branch manager that he forgot when he was

transferred to Warangal cannot be accepted. It was also held

that Section 5 of Limitation Act, provide shelter to the parties CRP.No.3609of 2016

with due diligence shows reasonable and sufficient cause that

prevent them from putting forth their case in time.

5. The reasons stated by the petitioner herein for abnormal

delay is neither satisfactory nor convincing and thus the

petition was dismissed against which he preferred the CRP and

simply stated that notice was not served upon him, when the

matter is transferred from Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Warangal to Senior Civil Judge Court at Jangaon. He also stated

that liberal approach is to be taken up by the Courts. Inspite of

service of notice and appearance before the Court as he could

not make proper representation either in person or through the

counsel, he was set exparte on 15.04.2022 and suit was decreed

in the year 2014 i.e. 12 years after filing of the suit. Though it is

a suit filed for recovery of amount only after filing of the EP, he

came up with this application.

6. The trial Court considering all the factors rightly

dismissed the application and I do not find any reason to

interfere with the same.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Peition is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

CRP.No.3609of 2016

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Date: 15.07.2022.

BV