Mahnoor Ali Abbas vs Tabasum Begum
2023 Latest Caselaw 1389 Tel

        HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO


 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.511, 513, 515 & 516 OF 2023

                        Date: 24.03.2023


C.R.P.No.511 of 2023:

Between:

Mahnoor ali Abbas, w/o. Ali Abbas,
Aged about 55 years, occu:Retd.Director,
R/o.22-1-920, Sultanpura, Hyderabad
and another.

                                    .....Petitioners/petitioners/
                                           Defendants 1 and 2

     and

Mohammed Abdul Khadeer,
s/o. late Mohammed Abdul Qhader
alias Jani Miya, Aged about 57 years,
Occu: Business, r/o.H.No.13-5-371/B,
Taleem Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad
and others.
                                      .....Respondents/plaintiff/

Defendants

The Court made the following:

PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.511, 513, 515 & 516 OF 2023

COMMON ORDER:

Heard learned counsel Sri P.Chandrashekar for the

petitioners and the learned counsel Sri Shaik Jilani for the

respondent no.1.

2. These four Revisions are preferred against the Orders in

respective I.As., filed under Section 148 read with Section 151

of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying the Court to

receive the petitions vide S.R.Nos.2189/2017, 2191/2017,

2195/2017, 2192/2017, dated 24.08.2017, respectively, filed

along with written statements by condoning the delay of 1972

days in the respective I.As.

3. On 05.01.2017, the right to file written statement by the

defendants 1 and 2 was forfeited by the trial Court. On

24.08.2017 defendants 1 and 2 filed petitions under Section

151 of CPC to set aside the order dated 05.01.2017 filed along

with written statements. The said petitions were returned with

objections by the Section on 05.09.2017. Thereafter, issues

were framed on 07.04.2021; plaintiff filed chief-affidavit;

Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to record cross-

PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch

examination of P.W.1. On 04.01.2023, the Advocate-

Commissioner filed report pertaining to cross-examination of

P.W.1.

4. On the said date, learned counsel appearing for

defendants 1 and 2 appeared before the Court and requested

that petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 should be given

opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1. Though right to file written

statement was forfeited, the Court below directed the Advocate-

Commissioner to record cross-examination of P.W.1 by counsel

appearing for defendants 1 and 2 on 07.01.2023 at 11.30 a.m.

and submit report by 09.01.2023. On 09.01.2023, the

Advocate-Commissioner filed a Memo stating that on

07.01.2023 at 11.30 a.m., as directed by the plaintiff/P.W.1,

counsel for the plaintiff and the Advocate-Commissioner were

present at Commission Hall and waited till 12.30 Noon, but

defendants 1 and 2 and their counsel did not turn up and the

same was recorded.

5. The Court below observed that as suit is of the year 2016,

and in spite of right to file written statement by the defendants

1 and 2 was forfeited on 05.01.2017, Court gave opportunity to

cross-examine P.W.1, but defendants 1 and 2 failed to cross-

PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch

examine P.W.1 on the date and time fixed by the Court and,

therefore, cross-examination of P.W.1 by the defendants 1 and 2

is treated as 'NIL' on 09.01.2023 and suit was posted for further

plaintiff's evidence.

6. On 18.01.2023, the learned counsel for defendants

reported that the Advocate-Commissioner has not informed

them regarding cross-examination of P.W.1. This was not

accepted by the trial Court. On detailed consideration of the

petitions filed by the petitioners to receive the petitions vide

S.R.Nos.2189/2017, 2191/2017, 2195/2017, 2192/2017,

dated 24.08.2017, respectively,, along with written statements

to condone delay of 1972 days were considered and having

regard to the conduct of the parties, Court below declined to

condone the delay in all four petitions.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, it is

averred that due to various family problems, defendants could

not give instructions to their counsel to prepare written

statements to be filed in the Court. It is further averred in

paragraph-5 of the affidavit that defendants gave instructions to

their counsel and the learned counsel prepared the written

statements along with the petitions and the same were filed in PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch

the Court on 24.08.2017 and the same were returned by the

Office stating that petitions were filed with wrong provision of

law and notices were not served on the other side counsel.

Though learned counsel has taken back the petitions, they were

not resubmitted and kept in the case bundles. This fact came

to the knowledge of the defendants only after they saw the paper

publication and immediately they tried to contract their counsel,

but he was not available, as such they filed the Vakalat by

engaging another Advocate.

8. Defendants have also taken the plea that due to Covid-19

pandemic, they could not approach their counsel and resubmit

the petitions. This was considered by the trial Court and the

trial Court found that defendants had sufficient time to

resubmit the petitions much before upsurge of Covid-19

pandemic and therefore they could not take such defence since

the Office raised the objections on 05.01.2017 i.e., much prior

to Covid-19 pandemic. Having seen the conduct of the parties

and having regard to the delay in prosecuting the matters, trial

Court dismissed the petitions.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners sought to contend that

written statements are filed long back and the plaintiff filed PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch

chief-examinations only in April, 2021. Therefore, by condoning

the delay, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff and on

the contrary, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners

if they are not permitted to defend by filing written statements.

In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on

the decision of the Hon'ble Court in G.Satyanaraya vs.

M.Shankar .

10. From the reading of paragraph-10 of the said judgment, it

is seen that there was latches on the part of the Advocate and

the Court observed that due to the latches of learned Advocate,

the party cannot be blamed and, therefore, the Court inclined to

condone the delay. In the instant case, petitioners are not

blaming the lawyer. Furthermore, in the instant cases, there is

inordinate delay in prosecuting/representing the applications.

Furthermore, as noticed by the trial Court, even though leave

was granted by the trial Court, defendants have not appeared

before the Advocate-Commissioner, when the date fixed, to

cross-examine P.W.1. The Court below rightly rejected the

applications having found that the defendants are dragging on

the matters and are not interested in prosecuting the litigation

properly.

MANU/AP/0064/2001 PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch

11. They are well considered Orders. I see no error in the decisions

of the lower Court warranting interference. The Civil Revision

Petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications if any

shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 24.03.2023 Kkm PNR,J CRP No.511 of 2023 & batch

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.511, 513, 515 & 516 OF 2023

Date: 24.03.2023 kkm