Telangana High Court
Smt. Anandamma vs Thirupamanna on 22 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.781 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order, dated 24.10.2024 in I.A.No.629 of
2023 in O.S.No.141 of 2024 (Old O.S.No.94 of 2018) passed by
the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal,
Jogulamba Gadwal District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is plaintiff
No.1, who filed a suit in O.S.No.141 of 2024 against the
defendants-defendants seeking declaration of title and recovery
of possession over the suit schedule property to an extent of
Ac.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.267/B, Pyki, situated at Yapadinne
Village, Ieeja Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. It is stated
that in the said suit the respondents-defendants were set ex-
parte and subsequently an ex-parte decree was passed. It is
stated that basing on the ex parte decree, the petitioner herein
made an application to the Tahsildar, Ieeja Mandal, seeking
implementation of the said decree in her favour. The
application was considered by the Tahsildar and he effected
NNR,J
crp_781_2025
name of the petitioner as a pattadar in the revenue records in
respect of the subject property. Subsequently, the respondents
herein filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The
learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal vide order, dated
04.08.2022 in I.A.No.426 of 2022 set aside the ex parte.
3. It is further stated that in view of setting aside the
ex-parte decree, the respondents herein filed another
application in I.A.No.629 of 2023 under section 151 of CPC
seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Ieeja Mandal for
restoration of entries made in the revenue records in respect of
the suit land as they were made prior to the implementation of
the ex-parte Þcree dated 15.12.2019. The said application
was allowed by passing docket order dated 24.10.2024 and
directing the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), Ieeja Mandal
to restore entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit
land and and a direction was given to rectify the entry and to
revert back the entries which were mentioned earlier.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision
petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff No.1 contending that
the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ought not to have
NNR,J
crp_781_2025
allowed the application filed by the respondents-defendants
since the Tahsildar, Ieeja Mandal is not a party to the suit and
he cannot pass such an order against the procedure
contemplated under Rule 53 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
Further, it is contended that no notice was served on the
petitioner herein and that the counsel appearing the petitioner
is also not recorded in the impugned order and the order is a
non-speaking, unreasonable, and cryptic. It is further
contended that that there is no difference between ex parte
decree and the decree after full-fledged trial and that the
learned Judge ought to have seen that the judgment decree
dated 15.12.2019, was pronounced as per law and procedure
and that it is fit case to rectify the entries and to revert back
the entries which were mentioned earlier.
5. Heard Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Narsimhulu, learned counsel representing
Ms. Mogli Anaveni, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Having, perused the entire material on record, it is
evident that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the
defendants seeking relief declaration of title and recovery of
NNR,J
crp_781_2025
possession. It is a fact that in the said suit, the respondents-
defendants were set ex-parte and the learned Judge has
passed an ex-parte decree. Pursuant to the said decree, it
appears that the petitioner herein and another have
approached the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar) and got
their names mutated in the revenue records basing on the ex-
parte decree. The said ex-parte decree was subsequently set
aside vide order dated 04.08.2022.
7. The main contention raised by learned counsel for
the revision petitioner herein is that the learned Judge ought
not to have entertained the application filed by the
respondents-defendants and no direction can be given to the
respondent No.3, who is not a party to the suit. As it is the
case of revision petitioner that the relevant entries were made
by respondent No.3 based on the ex-parte decree passed by the
trial Court. Once the decree has set aside basing on the ex-
parte decree, there is any change of position of the parties like
in the present case that the names of the plaintiffs got mutated
or entered into the revenue records through the Mandal
Revenue Officer i.e, Tahsildar who is respondent No.3 in
I.A.No.629 of 2023. As the said decree is passed by declaring
NNR,J
crp_781_2025
the petitioner herein as the absolute owner of the Suit
Schedule Property against the respondents and once the said
decree was set aside by order of the Court basing on an
application was made, the position/status of the parties can
be restored back as earlier, for the reason that the very change
of position/status of the parties like in the above situation was
purely basing on an ex-parte decree and as the matter is still
sub judiced.
8. In view of setting aside the decree, the respondents
are entitled to seek the restoration of their possession and I do
not see any error committed by the learned judge in ordering
the restoration of their entries which are reflected earlier prior
to passing of the ex-parte decree.
9. Although, it is the contention of the petitioner is
that no notice was given to her and otherwise she could have
participated the proceedings in I.A.629 of 2023. Whereas the
docket order shows that respondent No.2 who is the Tahsildar
was set ex-parte and respondent No.1 who is the plaintiff
therein said to have reported no counter and in view of the
same, now the contention of the petitioner is that no principles
NNR,J
crp_781_2025
of natural justice have not followed and cannot be expected for
the reason that the docket speaks that respondent No.1
appeared and reported no counter. Hence, for the said reasons
this Court holds that there is no error committed by the
learned judge in allowing the application and I do not see any
grounds to interfere with the order passed by learned trial
Court.
10. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision
Petition falls to the ground it is deserves to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision
petition shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Date: 22.09.2025
ADT
