Telangana High Court
Chittimalla Umakanth vs Kokkonda Laxmi Shobha on 27 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2252 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated
29.02.2024 passed in E.P.No.10 of 2022 in O.S.No.17 of 2020
on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at
Hanamkonda.
2. Heard Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Notice sent to respondent returned with an
endorsement 'party left' and the notice taken on counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent before the trial Court is
served, however, there is no representation on behalf of the
respondent.
3. Petitioner herein is judgment debtor and respondent
herein is decree holder.
4. The brief facts of the case are that respondent herein filed
suit in O.S.No.17 of 2020 for recovery of money on 10.02.2020
before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal
which is just before covid pandemic period. The summons
issued by the trial court to the petitioner herein were not served
and as per the report filed by serving officer the summons were
affixed to the door of the house of the petitioner. The trial Court
on 19.02.2021 considering the above facts and circumstances,
held that the service of summons as sufficient and petitioner
herein was called absent and was set ex parte and thereafter
suit was decreed in favour of the respondent herein on
10.08.2021. Petitioner herein filed an application under Order
IX, Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated
10.08.2021 along with an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing application to set
aside ex parte decree and both the applications are pending
adjudication. In the meanwhile respondent herein filed
execution petition to execute the decree dated 10.08.2021 vide
E.P.No.10 of 2022. The trial Court vide its order dated
29.02.2024 passed an order in E.P.No.10 of 2022 for
attachment of salary of the petitioner herein and aggrieved by
the order dated 29.02.2024 present revision petition is filed.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
suit was filed just before the covid pandemic period and
petitioner herein was working as head constable in the police
department. The trial Court erroneously considered affixing of
summons on the door as sufficient service and set the petitioner
ex parte on 19.02.2020, further adjudicated the suit and
decreed the suit on 10.08.2021 which is also during the covid
pandemic period. Two applications which are filed by the
petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree and to condone
the delay in filing the Order IX, Rule 13 application are pending
and without adjudicating the application, the trial Court
entertained E.P and also passed order attaching salary of the
petitioner. In these circumstances, it is contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court may be directed to
dispose of the applications filed under Order IX, Rule 13 and
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act first and
then to proceed with the E.P.
6. Perusal of the record discloses that admittedly, suit was
filed just before the covid pandemic and the petitioner herein
was set ex parte on 19.02.2021 basing on the report of the
Serving Officer that summons were affixed on the door of the
house of the petitioner and the date on which the suit was
decreed is also covid pandemic period. In considered opinion of
this Court, the trial Court ought to given sufficient opportunity
to the petitioner herein to contest the matter since the petitioner
herein was working as head constable in police department and
he was performing his duties at Hyderabad. Further, the trial
Court ought to have considered the applications filed by the
petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree as well as application
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before passing any
order in E.P.No.10 of 2022.
7. Therefore, considering the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the
evidence placed on record, this Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 29.02.2024 in
E.P.No.10 of 2022 in O.S.No.17 of 2020 and the trial Court is
directed to adjdudicate the applications filed by the petitioner
under Order IX, Rule 13 of CPC as well as Section 5 of
Limitation Act as expeditiously as possible and till such time the
proceedings in E.P are stayed. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also represented that after filing of the revision also
salary of the petitioner has been attached and amounts are
deducted during the pendency of the revision. Therefore,
petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application for
withdrawal of the salary deducted pursuant to the impugned
order dated 29.02.2024 and on such application being filed the
trial Court shall pass necessary orders expeditiously.
8. With the above said direction, civil revision petition is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHEETTY,J
Date:27.02.2025
Bw
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2252 of 2024
Dt.: 27.02.2025
Bw
