Telangana High Court
Bokka Sridhar Reddy vs Smt. Bobba Padmasri And Another on 20 October, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.574 of 2021
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against orders of the
trial Court in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No. 21 of 2018 dated
20.03.2020.
2. O.S.No.21 of 2018 is filed for Specific Performance of
contract and Agreement of Sale dated 04.08.2015 in respect of
the suit schedule lands totally measuring an extent of
Acs.10 - 13 gts, situated at Kagazmaddur village, Narsapur
Mandal, Medak District. The said suit was decreed in favour of
the plaintiff and defendants are directed to execute registered
sale deed within two months from the date of judgment i.e, on
28.02.2019. The defendants in the suit filed an application
before the trial Court to set aside the ex-parte order dated
28.02.2019. They mainly contended that address of the
registered sale deed is not shown in plaint and in the E.P
proceedings and wrong address is mentioned and got
endorsement as refused. As such, requested the Court to set
aside the ex-parte decree. The trial Court considering the
arguments, allowed the application by setting aside the ex-parte
decree. Aggrieved by the said order, this Civil Revision Petition
is preferred.
3. The revision petitioner stated that O.S.No.21 of 2018 was
decreed in his favour on 28.02.2019. Whereas, respondents
have filed I.A.No.46 of 2020 to set aside the ex-parte decree
without filing any independent application to condone the delay
by explaining reasons, as such the present application is not
maintainable. The respondents did not adduce any evidence in
support of their reasons. They simply stated that, they came to
know about the decree on 01.11.2019. As per revenue records,
suit schedule property was an agricultural land and the
residential address reflects about the present stay of the parties
and refusal of summons in the absence of rebuttal evidence nor
examining any official to set aside the ex-parte decree is not
sustainable. Cheque bounce case was also filed against the
respondent No.2, regarding certain money transactions. As
such, the argument of the respondents that they came to know
about the suit on the particular day and filed application within
30 days is not tenable and thus requested the Court to set aside
the order of the trial Court dated 10.03.2020.
4. The address of one Bobba Padmasri was shown in the
sale deed as "Resident of Pragathi Enclave, Bhagyanagar
Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State, Aadhaar
No.3519 9633 6922, PAN No.AFKPB6803M". But, in the suit,
address is shown as "Resident of Flat No.104, Sri Sai
Raghaavendra Pinacle, Kura Residency, Street No.4, Ashok
Nagar, Hyderabad". Address mentioned in the suit is also
mentioned in the E.P proceedings. In the judgment, it is
specifically mentioned that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were served
with notice, but they did not appear before the Court. As such,
they were set ex-parte. In E.P proceedings, Process Server
mentioned that notices were refused. The revision petitioner
stated that he filed E.P.No.60 of 2019 in pursuance of the
orders of the suit and registered sale deed executed in his
favour on 09.08.2019.
5. I.A.No.46 of 2020 was filed by Bobba Sri Rama
Lingeshwara Rao as the second petitioner, who is the defendant
No.2 in the suit stated that he was staying in the U.S.A of
California since 2000 on job, he used to come to India now and
then. The petitioner No.1 is his mother and she was staying in
Kukatpally. His father was died in the year 2005 leaving
himself, three sisters and his mother. His three sisters were also
staying in the U.S.A along with their family members. His
mother used to visit the U.S.A as well as India frequently. The
respondent was working in a mechanic shed of his brother-in-
law at Kukatpally. He requested the respondent/plaintiff to look
after the welfare of his mother and to assist her as and when
needed. When he returned to India on 01.11.2019, he came to
know that his mother handed over the original sale deed of the
suit schedule property, pass book and title deeds to
respondent/plaintiff and obtained encumbrance certificate. He
came to know that the respondent/plaintiff created agreement
of sale without their consent and also executed sale deed on
09.08.2019. He further stated that agreement of sale is not a
registered document under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
Even then, it is marked as Ex.A1 against the provisions of
Registration Act. He mostly contended that the
respondent/plaintiff furnished wrong address and obtained
ex-parte decree and thus requests the Court to set aside the ex-
parte order dated 28.02.2019.
6. In the counter - affidavit filed by the respondent/plaintiff
in I.A.No.46 of 2020, stated that defendants filed application
under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C to set aside the ex-parte order.
When the notices were sent to the defendants in O.S.No.21 of
2018, they were returned with an endorsement "Refused". The
Court executed a sale deed in his favour and also handed over
the possession. Therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the
application.
7. The counsel for the revision petitioner stated that there
was another case between them in C.C.No.771 of 2021, as such
both of them are in touch with each other. Therefore, the
argument of the respondents herein that summons were not
served on them cannot be accepted.
8. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides,
observed that admittedly wrong address was shown by the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein. Their address is different in the
suit and in E.P when compared with the address mentioned in
registered sale deed. The petitioners herein when came to know
about the fraud played upon by the respondent/plaintiff filed an
application. As the limitation starts from the date of knowledge,
they need not file another application for condonation of delay
and thus allowed the application by setting aside the ex-parte
decree. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides
rightly allowed the application by setting aside the ex-parte
order and it needs no interference.
9. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
confirming the order under challenge.
10. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED:20.10.2022
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.574 of 2021
DATED: 20.10.2022
TRI
