Telangana High Court
M/S. Name Estates Private Limited vs Manchala Lakshmamma on 26 March, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3385 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the
order dated 11.09.2023 passed in I.A.No.263 of 2023 in O.S.No.12 of 2011 by
the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District, in
allowing the petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 - defendants 14 and 15
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of CPC to
condone the delay of 1775 days in filing the petition for setting aside the decree
passed against them.
2. Heard Sri B.Raveendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner - plaintiff
filed the suit for specific performance of agreement in respect of the suit
schedule property situated at Rahimkhanguda Village, Bibinagar Mandal,
Yadadri Bhongir District in the year 2011 against 29 defendants. The
respondents 1 and 2 - defendants 14 and 15 were set ex-parte on 29.04.2011.
The service of summons on the defendants itself took place a long time. The
decree was passed on 10.07.2018. The respondents 1 and 2 were also put to
Dr.GRR, J
crp_3385_2023
notice vide I.A.No.575 of 2011 in O.S.No.12 of 2011 during the pendency of
the suit proceedings. Subsequent to the passing of the judgment and decree in
their favor, E.P.No.343 of 2020 was filed. In the EP also summons were served
on the respondents 1 and 2. But they chose to remain ex-parte. The
respondents 1 and 2 filed the petition to set aside the ex-parte judgment and
decree with an inordinate delay of 1775 days on 19.06.2023. The trial court
failed to consider that no sufficient cause was shown by the respondents 1 and 2
in their affidavit to condone the delay of 1775 days. The trial court without
considering the aspect of service of suit summons on respondents 1 and 2,
allowed the application. The respondents having knowledge of all the
proceedings and watching the proceedings had filed the petition at the time of
final execution only to deprive the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of the
decree. The trial court inadvertently numbered the application under Order IX
Rule 13 of CPC without disposal of the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act and prayed to set aside the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the
learned I Additional District Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District in I.A.No.263 of
2023 in O.S.No.12 of 2011.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that
respondents 1 and 2 had not received any summons from the Court and they
came to know about the factum of passing of the decree only on 18.06.2023
when the revision petitioner - plaintiff trespassed into their patta land stating
Dr.GRR, J
crp_3385_2023
that they obtained the decree and filed E.P.No.343 of 2020 and also filed
E.A.No.27 of 2023 and that the Court granted ad interim injunction in their
favor restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from altering or claiming the nature of
the EP schedule property or creating third party rights by way of alienation.
The respondents 1 and 2 were not served with summons in the main suit or
notices in the EP at any point of time. The suit was initially filed in Nalgonda,
subsequently it was transferred to Bhongir, but no notice was issued after its
transfer to Bhongir. The substantial rights of the parties were involved in the
suit and the suit could be decided on merits. The trial court on considering all
these aspects allowed the petition. There was no irregularity or illegality in the
order passed by the trial court to set aside the same and prayed to dismiss the
Civil Revision Petition.
4.1. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of High
Court of Madras in Dayanandhini v. K.Mala 1 on the aspect that when the
parties were not having any knowledge about the transfer of the Civil Suit from
one Court to another, they might not be aware of the date of hearing. In such a
situation, they could not file the application only from the date of knowledge of
the decree and gave a direction to all the Civil Courts with instructions to issue
notices to the parties on transfer of the suit, on account of constitution of new
(2019) SCC OnLine Madras 19869
Dr.GRR, J
crp_3385_2023
courts, bifurcation of jurisdiction, transfer of cases due to change in pecuniary
jurisdiction or even due to work load, wherever it was necessary.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the additional
district Court was established on 02.06.2022, but the respondents 1 and 2 were
set ex-parte in the year 2011. The respondents 1 and 2 had not pleaded in their
affidavit that no notice was issued to them after transfer of the case to Bhongir.
After a long drawn process of service of summons on each of the defendants in
the suit as well as in the I.A.s filed in it, the decree could be passed only on
10.07.2018. The respondents 1 and 2 having knowledge of the suit proceedings
and the EP proceedings waited to file the petition till 2023. No reasons were
given by the trial court in allowing the petition and prayed to allow the Civil
Revision Petition.
6. Considering that the respondents 1 and 2 were set ex-parte in the year
2011 itself in the suit and the bifurcation of the districts was in the year 2022
and the EP was transferred subsequently and notice in the EP proceedings were
also received by respondents 1 and 2 by 04.02.2021 itself and as they had also
not pleaded the said fact in their affidavit in the petition filed in I.A.No.263 of
2023 in O.S.No.12 of 20121, this Court considers that the transfer of the case
from one district to another was not having any impact on respondents 1 and 2
Dr.GRR, J
crp_3385_2023
in the facts and circumstances of this case. As such, the above judgment could
not be applied to their benefit.
7. As seen from the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 - defendant
No.15 in I.A.No.263 of 2023, he stated that he and the defendant No.14 were
not served with any summons from the Court or notices in the EP at any point
of time. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that as per the
docket proceedings of the suit dated 29.04.2011, summons were served on
defendants 1, 3 to 24, they were called absent and as such they were set ex-
parte. He further stated that the respondents 1 and 2 were also put to notice in
I.A.No.575 of 2011 in O.S.No.12 of 2011 during the pendency of the suit
proceedings and in E.P.No.343 of 2020 also notices were served on J.Drs.1 to
24, as per the docket proceedings of the E.P. dated 04.02.2021 and as there is no
representation on their behalf, they were set ex-parte. The trial court in the
impugned order dated 11.09.2023 had not discussed whether summons were
served on the respondents 1 and 2 or not in the suit as well as in the EP. Except
referring to the citations and the principles mentioned in them, the facts as
contended by the petitioner and respondents in the said petition are not
deliberated by the learned Judge.
8. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
addresses of the respondents 1 and 2 in the petition in I.A.No.263 of 2023 and
Dr.GRR, J
crp_3385_2023
the addresses mentioned by the plaintiff of defendants 14 and 15 in the suit and
respondents 14 and 15 in the EP were one and the same, as such, they were not
entitled to say that there was no such service of summons upon them. The said
aspects, which were part of the record, were not considered by the court below.
No proper explanation was given by the respondents 1 and 2 for condoning the
inordinate delay of 1775 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte
decree.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer2, held that:
"12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a
particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on
equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an
evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers
a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause
hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but
to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex"
which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a
situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive
factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
13. The Statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to
secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken
diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which
have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become
stale."
AIR 2014 SC 746
Dr.GRR, J
crp_3385_2023
10. As the respondents 1 and 2 failed to show that they were diligent enough
in prosecuting the matter and had not given adequate and justifiable reasons for
condoning the inordinate delay of 1775 days in approaching the Court to set
aside the ex-parte decree passed against them and as they filed the petition at the
fag end of the EP proceedings, it appears to have been filed with an intention to
drag the matter and to deprive the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of the decree.
Hence, it is considered fit to set aside the order dated 11.09.2023 passed in
I.A.No.263 of 2023 in O.S.No.12 of 2011 by the learned I Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order
dated 11.09.2023 passed in I.A.No.263 of 2023 in O.S.No.12 of 2011 by the
learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 26th March, 2025
Nsk
