Telangana High Court
Palsi Palsollagangabai, vs Marupaka Lingamaiah on 12 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3347 of 2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant,
aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.213 of 2025
in O.S.No.69 of 2024 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa.
2. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 151 of C.P.C.
seeking to recall the order dated 16.06.2025, by which the trial Court
had forfeited her right to file a written statement. On that date, the
Court passed an order of forfeiture and posted the matter to
18.06.2025 for the evidence of the petitioner. Subsequently, the
petitioner submitted a written statement along with the recall petition,
explaining that she was unable to approach her Advocate due to ill-
health and advanced age. She stated that this delay was
unintentional and requested the Court to set aside the forfeiture order
and accept her written statement. Despite being served, the
respondent did not file any counter to the petition. However, on
14.08.2025, the trial Court dismissed the petition, observing that the
petitioner had merely claimed to be suffering from ill-health without
submitting any supporting medical documents. The Court held that
the reasons cited were vague and insufficient to justify the delay.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been
filed.
SKS,J
3. Heard Sri Nimmalwar Praveen, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the
petitioner had preferred I.A.No.213 of 2025 seeking to set aside the
order dated 16.06.2025, by which the trial Court had forfeited the
right of the defendant to file a written statement and on 14.08.2025,
the said petition was dismissed and the plaintiff filed the chief affidavit
of PW-1, who was examined by the Court below and Exs.A1 to A3 were
marked through PW-1. However, no opportunity was given to the
petitioner to cross-examine PW-1 and surprisingly, the docket reflects
that PW-1 was examined, Exs.A1 to A3 were marked, and that there
was no representation from the defendant. Consequently, the cross-
examination of PW-1 was recorded as "nil" and the counsel for the
plaintiff reported that there was no further plaintiff evidence, and the
matter was heard, arguments were recorded, and the case was
reserved for judgment and posted to 12.11.2025. He further
submitted that the counsel for petitioner was very much present
before the trial Court on 14.08.2025 and had represented the
petitioner in the present matter, as well as in another case before the
same Court. The e-Court docket reflecting this is filed herewith as
Annexure P4. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the docket
order dated 14.08.2025.
SKS,J
5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and upon a perusal of the material available on record,
it is evident that the petitioner filed the application along with the
written statement within one month from the date of forfeiture of her
right to file the same. Although it was submitted that the petitioner is
a senior citizen suffering from ill-health, the trial Court failed to
consider this aspect. The age of the petitioner was specifically
mentioned as 65 years, and the reasons for the delay were duly
explained. It is well settled that the trial Court must decide the lis on
its merits rather than on technicalities. Accordingly, the order passed
by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the trial Court is directed to
receive the written statement filed by the petitioner and proceed to
decide the matter on merits, in accordance with law.
6. With the above directions, this 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.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:12.09.2025
SS
