Telangana High Court
Pirangi Mallaiah vs Madaram Laxmi on 21 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.590 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the
order dated 08.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.554 of 2019 in
O.S.No.69 of 2015 by the learned I Additional Junior Civil
Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad
District.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 13 filed a petition before the
trial Court, vide I.A.No.554 of 2019 in O.S.No.69 of 2015,
under Order IX Rule 7 read with 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 to set aside the ex-parte order dated
26.11.2015 due to non representation, despite conditional
orders. The trial Court, vide order dated 08.07.2022,
dismissed the petition, citing lack of representation since
filing of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil
revision petition is filed.
SKS,J
3. Heard Sri Ajay Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Guru Raj Joshi, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
despite filing a written statement and petition to set aside the
order of the trial Court, the trial Court did not consider it and
orally advised appealing to the High Court. Therefore, he
requested the Court to allow this revision petition, granting an
opportunity to the petitioners to contest the suit i.e.,
O.S.No.69 of 2015.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that against the order of dismissal, the petitioners
should have filed a petition to set aside the order, hence, the
revision is not maintainable. Therefore, he prayed the Court
to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. In support of his submission, he relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virudhunagar
Hindunadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others v.
SKS,J
Tuticorin Educational Society and others 1 , wherein in
paragraph No.13, it is held as under:
"13. Therefore, wherever the proceedings are
under the Code of Civil Procedure and the forum in
the civil Court, the availability of a remedy under the
CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a
measure of self-imposed restriction, but as a matter
of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power
of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence,
the High Court ought not to have entertained the
revision under Article 227 especially in a case where
a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the
Code of Civil Procedure itself."
7. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on
record, it appears that the trial court dismissed I.A.No.554 of
2019 in O.S.No.69 of 2015 on 08.07.2022, due to non-
representation despite conditional orders. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it fit to
give a fair opportunity to the petitioners to contest the case by
setting aside the order dated 08.07.2022.
8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed,
setting aside the order dated 08.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.554
of 2019 in O.S.No.69 of 2015, and directing the trial court to
(2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 538
SKS,J
consider the petition filed by the petitioners to set aside the
ex-parte order on its merits.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 21.10.2024
SAI
