Smt. Puppali Annapurna vs Anantha Laxmi Narayana , A. Laxmi ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4335 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. Puppali Annapurna vs Anantha Laxmi Narayana , A. Laxmi ... on 15 December, 2023

              THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA



            CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1821 OF 2022

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant

No.1 praying the Court to set aside the judgment in O.S.No.10 of

2019 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, wherein the

petitioner who is defendant No.1 in the said suit was set ex parte.

O.S.No.10 of 2019 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against

the petitioner for declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

Summons were issued to the defendant No.1 through Court and

registered post but the same was returned as Party left as

endorsed by the postal authority, therefore, it is deemed service in

view of Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897. The

petitioner/defendant No.1 has not attended the Court. As such,

petitioner was set ex parte and after recording the evidence of

plaintiff in the suit, suit was decreed.

2. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the house

number mentioned in the suit is H.No.2-75/5, Badangpet,

Samathanagar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereas the

correct house number is H.No.2-72/5, Badangpet, Samathanagar,

Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. The respondent herein sent

notice to the petitioner to the wrong address. Therefore, the

impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff would submit that he filed the suit stating

that the wrong address i.e., H.No.2-72/5, Badangpet,

Samathanagar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District is a

typographical mistake and that there is no fault on his part.

Further, his contention is that revision is not maintainable as the

petitioner has failed to file appeal against the judgment of the trial

Court and without availing the remedy she filed this revision. In

support of his contention, he relied on the judgment in Mohamed

Ali Vs V. Jaya & Others 1.

4. Having regard to the rival submissions, this revision is filed

against the judgment passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal

in O.S.No.10 of 2019, wherein the suit was decreed exparte.

Against the ex parte decree order, petitioner has to approach

appropriate forum by filing appeal. Instead of filing appeal, she

filed this revision. The Honble Apex Court in the paragraph 7.1 of

the said judgment observed that when there is a specific remedy of

2022 Livelaw (SC) 574

appeal as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself,

approaching High Court is contrary to law. In view of the settled

principles of law, this revision petition is not maintainable.

However, petitioner is granted liberty to approach appropriate

forum to avail remedy and the trial Court can decide the petition

independently on merits.

5. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

__________________ K. SUJANA, J Date :15.12.2023 Rds