M/S. Sree Mangalam Business ... vs K. Sateesh And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4798 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

      C.R.P.Nos.1055, 1056, 1926 and 1932 of 2021

                      COMMON ORDER


1.     C.R.P.No.1055 of 2021 is filed against the order dated

24.06.2020 passed in I.A.No.72 of 2020 in I.A.No.50 of 2019

in O.S.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional

District Judge, Siddipet.


2.     C.R.P.No.1056 of 2021 is filed against the order dated

24.06.2021 passed in I.A.No.73 of 2020 in I.A.No.49 of 2019

in O.S.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional

District Judge, Siddipet.


3.     C.R.P.No.1926 of 2021 is filed against the order dated

24.06.2021 passed in I.A.No.73 of 2020 in I.A.No.49 of 2019

in O.S.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional

District Judge, Siddipet.


4.     C.R.P.No.1932 of 2021 is filed against the order dated

24.06.2021 passed in I.A.No.72 of 2020 in I.A.No.50 of 2019

in O.S.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional

District Judge, Siddipet.


5.     A common judgment dated 23.03.2018 was passed by

the trial Court in O.S.Nos.13, 14 and 15 of 2015. The trial
                                                                    PSS,J
                              2                       CRP_1055,1056,1926
                                                          And 1932_2021



Court observed that all the three suits are filed for declaration

of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits regarding

separate suit property by separate plaintiffs. K.Ravi Shankar

Srinivas (plaintiff in O.S.No.13 of 2015), K.Satish (plaintiff in

O.S.No.14 of 2015) are two sons of K.Vijayalaxmi (plaintiff in

O.S.No.15 of 2015) and K.Rama Rao, who is her husband.

They purchased respective lands under separate registered

sale deeds. All the three suits are concerned with the mother

and her two sons. The plaint averments in all the suits are

one and the same except few additions and description of the

defendants. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.13 of 2015 is

different set of defendants. The defendants in O.S.Nos.14 and

15 of 2015 are one and the same. In the suit it was clearly

observed that in O.S.No.13 of 2015 summons were served on

Defendant Nos.2 and 3 but, there were absent and set

ex-parte. Summons were served on the first defendant by way

of publication in Deccan Chronicle English Daily Newspaper,

Hyderabad Edition on 11.12.2016. The first defendant was

absent and remained ex-parte. In O.S.Nos.14 and 15 of 2015

summons were served on the first defendant and he appeared

in person but failed to file the written statement and therefore

set ex-parte. Summon were served on the second defendant by

way of publication in Deccan Chronicle English Daily
                                                                     PSS,J
                                 3                     CRP_1055,1056,1926
                                                           And 1932_2021



Newspaper,   Hyderabad    Edition    on   11.12.2016     but,     he

remained absent and set ex-parte. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are

brothers and the third defendant is the son of the second

defendant. They are members of one family. The trial Court

after considering the arguments of both sides decreed the

suits and declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of

the property and also directed Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to

vacate the suit schedule property and apart from that they are

directed to pay mesne profits.


6.     One Girish Kumar on behalf of the first defendant firm

i.e., M/s.Mangalam Business Ventures filed an application

stating that he received notice on 18.02.2019 from the

Tahsildar, Manoharabad Mandal, Medak District, with the

direction to appear on 23.03.2019 along with supported

documents.   K.Vijayalaxmi,      W/o.K.V.K.Rama   Rao     filed    a

petition contending that as per the judgment in O.S.No.15 of

2015 dated 23.03.2018 her name is to be incorporated in the

revenue records for an extent of Ac.5.31 guntas in Sy.No.296

and Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.297. He requested the Tahsildar

to grant time for filing counter as the decree is passed

ex-parte, but the Tahsildar rejected the same on 23.02.2019.

He verified the "A" dairy maintained in the Court and came to

know about the common judgment dated 23.03.2018 in all
                                                                             PSS,J
                                     4                         CRP_1055,1056,1926
                                                                   And 1932_2021



the suits i.e., O.S.Nos.13, 14 and 15 of 2015. On refreshing

his memory, he recollected that he appeared in person before

the Court on 18.09.2015 and sought time to engage the

Advocate and the matter was adjourned to 09.11.2015. On

that date he appeared in person and he was informed that

Presiding Officer is on transfer and the next date of the

adjournment will be informed by way of notice. But, to his

surprise he was set ex-parte for non-filing of written statement

on 10.08.2016. He further stated that he is the absolute

owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.23.00 guntas of

land in Sy.Nos.298 and 299 and Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.296

and 297. He purchased the same under a registered sale deed

dated 08.02.2010 from the Official Liquidator. Originally M/s.

Satya   Steel    Strips    Private       Limited   formerly    known     as

M/s.Larsven Engineers Private Limited acquired the said

property       under      five    registered       sale     deeds      from

M.Rangaiah and others. Later, M/s.Satya Steel Strips Limited

went    into    liquidation      process.    Official     Liquidator   was

appointed and the properties were taken over by the official

liquidator and he was directed to alienate the same.

Accordingly the Official Liquidator gave an advertisement

fixing the set up value as Rs.20,13,00,000/- for land and

Rs.55,00,000/- for machinery, structures and sheds. Auction
                                                                   PSS,J
                              5                      CRP_1055,1056,1926
                                                         And 1932_2021



was   conducted     and   M/s.Mahalaxmi      Profiles   became

successful bidder for Rs.11,10,000/- and he nominated the

first defendant as official liquidator and executed sale deed in

his favour. The first defendant mutated his name in the

relevant revenue records. He further stated that one Nagamma

and others filed E.P.NO.27 of 1998 in pursuance of the decree

in O.S.No.7 of 1987 and it was allowed in their favour. After

delivery of possession to the said Nagamma and others,

Official Liquidator preferred C.A.No.882 of 1999 and it was

allowed on 19.04.2005. The appeal was preferred in O.S.No.32

of 2005 and it was dismissed. Then C.A.No.368 of 2010 was

filed which was also dismissed. Plaintiff filed speculative

proceedings in O.S.Nos.13 and 15 of 2005 to deprive his

legitimate rights. Though he appeared before the Court on

18.09.2015, no sufficient opportunity was given to him. He

was set ex-parte on 10.08.2015. Decree was passed against

him on 23.03.2018. He came to know about the decree on

20.02.2019 and he received notice from the Tahsildar and

thus requested the Court to condone the delay of 350 days in

filing the petition to set aside the judgment and decree dated

23.03.2018 in O.S.No.14 of 2015.


7.      In the counter filed by the first respondent he stated

that the second defendant is no other than the paternal uncle PSS,J 6 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021

of the petitioner and they are all joint family members and

doing joint business. Petitioner and second respondent was

watching the court proceedings and both of them are fully

aware of the paper publication and they intentionally evaded

the Court process and they encroached the suit schedule

property. Therefore, he filed suit in the year 2015 but I.A. is

filed on 08.03.2019 i.e. after four years from the date of

personal attendance in the Court. Official Liquidator executed

registered sale deed on 29.01.2010 without survey and vague

boundaries. The Court Bailiff, as per the order in E.P.No.27 of

1998, delivered possession of the land admeasuring Ac.9.19

guntas and Ac.2.20 guntas which is in illegal possession of

Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 out of Ac.18.38 guntas. Petitioner

failed to explain the reasons for the delay as he appeared in

the Court on 18.09.2015 and there is no justification for

condoning the delay and that he willfully neglected to

participate in the proceedings though he is aware of the

consequences of non-appearance. He filed suit in the year

2015, the first defendant was set ex parte on 10.08.2016, his

chief-examination was filed on 25.01.2017 and the judgment

was delivered on 23.03.2018. Thereafter execution petition

was filed on 08.02.2019 and the litigation is pending from

1984. He further stated that he is ready to co-operate for PSS,J 7 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021

demarcation on their respective lands with the Survey

Authorities in execution petition proceedings as he is not

denying title of petitioners in Sy.Nos. 296 and 297 and

petitioner is not denying his title and thus, requested the

Court to dismiss the petition.

8. The trial Court considering the argument of both sides

observed that his predecessor in office substantially dealt with

the subject matter and he cannot re-appreciate the same. The

delay of 350 days was not properly explained and petition filed

by him lacks bona fides, due diligence and there are laches on

the part of petitioner and accordingly dismissed the

application.

9. Challenging the said dismissal order dated 15.11.2019,

C.R.P.Nos.1055 and 1056 of 2021 are filed. Petitioners also

filed review application before the trial Court and the said

application was also dismissed on 24.06.2021. In the said

order it was held that marking of the documents is the duty of

the Court and it cannot be considered as clerical error so also

right of review under Order XLVII R/w 114 of C.P.C is

subjected to many limitations and conditions and that there

are no new facts or error apparent on the face of the record.

Order was reserved on 18.09.2019 and pronounced on PSS,J 8 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021

15.11.2019. As per the docket order dated 01.11.2019, the

matter was adjourned for hearing the arguments of the

respondent and then posted for orders on 15.11.2019. When

once the Court has given a specific date for passing of the

judgment there is no need to give separate notice to the

parties. Notice is to be given only when the judgment is

reserved. With the above reasons, the reviews were dismissed.

Challenging the review orders, CRP.Nos.1932 of 2021 and

1926 of 2021 are filed before this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant in

the suit filed written arguments stating that originally

M/s.Satya Steel Strips Private Limited was the absolute owner

and possessor of Ac.28.30 guntas and it purchased the same

from M.Gangaiah and others for a valid sale consideration

through five different registered sale deeds. M/s.Satya Steel

Strips Private Limited went into liquidation process and

wound up and as per the orders of this Court, Official

Liquidator was appointed and all the assets were transferred

and vested with this Court and possession was taken over by

the Official Liquidator. As per the directions of this Court, the

Official Liquidator was directed to alienate all the properties

including the schedule property of M/s.Satya Steel Strips

Private Limited by way of auction and in the said auction PSS,J 9 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021

M/s.Mahalaxmi Profiles Private Limited was declared as

successful bidder and the bid was confirmed in its favour and

it nominated the first defendant and the Official Liquidator

executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and

also delivered possession along with machinery and sheds

fixed in it. The Tahsildar, Manoharabad Mandal, after due

enquiry passed mutation proceedings mutating the name of

the first defendant in revenue records.

11. K.Nagamma and others filed O.S.No.7 of 1987 and

obtained decree in their favour and also filed E.P.No.27 of

1998 and it was allowed in their favour and when tried to

deliver possession to them, the Official Liquidator preferred

C.A.No.882 of 1999 in C.P.No.23 of 1988 before this Court on

the ground that leave of this Court was not obtained and as

such entire proceedings are void and would not create any

right in favour of the persons referred above and it was

allowed by the Company Court. Aggrieved by the said order,

K.Nagamma and others preferred an appeal before this Court

in OSA No.32 of 2005 and the Division Bench of this Court

dismissed the appeal confirming possession of the Official

Liquidator and as such the Official Liquidator was in absolute

possession and at no point of time any third party was in

possession of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff PSS,J 10 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021

was also aware of the same but seems to have purchased the

property without proper title to his predecessor and thus, he

is not a bona fide purchaser. In view of dismissal of OSA

No.32 of 2005, K.Nagamma and others filed C.A.No.364 of

2010 in C.P.No.23 of 1988 before this Court seeking them to

declare as owners of land admeasuring Ac.18.38 guntas in

Sy.Nos.297 and 297, which is not part of the suit schedule

property. This Court after a detailed enquiry dismissed C.A.

and held that the relief claimed in the Company Application is

wholly misconceived. This Court also directed if K.Nagamma

and others assert their title to the said extent of Ac.18.38

guntas which does not form part of Ac.28.30 guntas and with

reference to which there is no dispute, they shall be free to

initiate appropriate legal proceedings in respect thereof. But

the Court below without appreciating the above facts passed

ex parte common judgment depriving the rights of the

petitioner over their rightfully purchased property of Ac.28.30

guntas. CRP No.1055 of 2021 is filed against the orders

passed in I.A.No.50 of 2019 in O.S.No.14 of 2015 under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 350

days and to set aside the common judgment passed in

O.S.Nos.13, 14 and 15 of 2015 dated 23.03.2018. The first

respondent filed the above suit for declaration of title, recovery PSS,J 11 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021

of possession and for mesne profits which was decreed ex

parte. Learned counsel by relying upon citations submitted

that the concept of explaining the delay of each day was

diluted by later decisions of this Court. He also submitted that

if the delay is computed from 13.02.2020 after excluding the

period of limitation as per the directions of the Supreme Court

is only 29 days in respect of CRP No.1055 of 2021 and there is

no delay in CRP No.1932 of 2022. Learned counsel further

submitted that though his client filed several documents

showing right, title and interest in respect of the subject

property, none of the documents were considered and marked

and if this Court does not come to the rescue of the petitioner,

it would suffer grave irreparable loss and thus requested the

Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

12. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended

that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to file written

statement and contest the matter, the matter can be disposed

on merits and thus, a reasonable opportunity is to be provided

to the petitioner.

13. Perusal of the record shows that after the service of

summons, the petitioner appeared before the Court in person

and sought time to engage the counsel. Even on the next date PSS,J 12 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021

of adjournment, he could not engage the counsel and later he

did not appear before the Court and contested the matter. The

petitioner simply stated that as he came to know that the

Presiding Officer was under transfer, he thought that another

notice will serve upon him and thus he could not pursue the

litigation. The reason stated by the petitioner is absurd and

when once he appeared before the Court he has to pursue the

litigation with due diligence, but he failed to do so. He neither

engaged the counsel nor appeared before the Court. As per the

observation of the Presiding Officer in the judgment that

summons were duly served on the petitioner and as he could

not appear, he was set ex-parte. The petitioner kept quiet till

passing of the judgment and simply stated that he came to

know about the judgment only when he received notice after

the filing of the E.P. The abnormal delay of nearly one year

was not explained properly and there is no sufficient reason to

condone the delay. Perusal of the record clearly shows that

the petitioner herein was watching the proceedings without

participating in it willfully and came up with this petition after

delivery of possession in the execution petition only with an

intention to drag on the proceedings and the said application

to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed by this Court on

15.09.2019. Again, he preferred review and it was also PSS,J 13 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021

dismissed on 24.06.2021 and further he preferred these

revisions against both the orders only with an intention to

drag on the proceedings.

14. In a case law reported in PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL

(DEAD) BY LRS. V/s. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JALGAON

MEDIUM PROJECT1 it was held as follows:

"the object of law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance and deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches"

15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, all the revision

petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed

with costs.

16. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed

with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondents within

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this common

order.

17. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand

dismissed in the light of this final order.

___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.

21st SEPTEMBER, 2022.

(2008) 17 SCC 448 PSS,J 14 CRP_1055,1056,1926 And 1932_2021

SS