Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 122 (AP)

Reddy Rama Krishna Reddy v. Narayana Adi Reddy

2007-02-06

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2007
ORDER The respondent filed O.S.No.240 of 2005 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, against the petitioner, for recovery of a sum of Rs.86,000/-. The first date of appearance in the suit was fixed as 23-1-2006. The petitioner states that though he received the summons in the suit, he could not appear before the trial Court on 23-1-2006, since his aged mother has seriously fallen ill. The trial Court decreed the suit ex parte, on the date of first date of appearance itself. 2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.105 of 2006 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree, pleading that he could not appear on 23-1-2006, on account of serious illness of his mother. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.7 of 2006 before the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapat. The appeal was dismissed on 17-11-2006. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is living with his mother and there was none to assist them. He states that the failure of the petitioner, to appear before the trial Court on 23-1-2006, was on account of the serious illness of his mother and the Courts below have proceeded in a hyper technical manner. He contends that the trial Court has exhibited undue haste, in not only decreeing the suit instantly but also taking further steps in the E.P. 4. Sri A. Prabhakara Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that even if the mother of the petitioner had fallen ill, he ought to have engaged an Advocate and there was absolutely no basis for non-appearance of the petitioner on the first date of appearance. 5. The trial Court appears to have adopted the easiest method of disposal and scoring units, by decreeing the suit, on the first date of appearance itself. The summons were served upon the petitioner on 2-1-2007. Even assuming that there was any default on the part of the petitioner in appearing before the trial Court on the first date of appearance, the trial Court was under the obligation to verify the pleadings and examine the matter with the other provisions of law. The summons were served upon the petitioner on 2-1-2007. Even assuming that there was any default on the part of the petitioner in appearing before the trial Court on the first date of appearance, the trial Court was under the obligation to verify the pleadings and examine the matter with the other provisions of law. It is not known as to how the trial Court had proceeded to record the evidence of the witness on behalf of the respondent, when the suit was listed for mere appearance of the defendant. The whole episode discloses casual approach or lack of seriousness on the part of the trial Court. The trial court reduced the process of adjudication, to an empty formality. It is on account of such immature, hasty and lopsided disposal, that people are prone to lose faith in the Courts. 6. The suit was decreed ex parte on 23-1-2006 and the petitioner filed I.A. No.1 05 of 2006 within one month from that date. He specifically pleaded that his aged mother had fallen seriously ill. The parties are said to be related. The plea of the petitioner was not denied by the respondent in his counter affidavit. The only objection taken by him was that no evidence was placed in support of that plea. The question of leading evidence would arise, if only the plea was denied. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., only on the ground that no evidence was placed in support of the plea of the petitioner that his aged mother has fallen ill. 7. The lower appellate Court had virtually functioned as an extension of trial Court. It did not even realise that hardly within one month, the I.A. was filed by the petitioner, and it has chosen to take note of Execution Proceedings. It did not observe the basis and fundamental principle that it is the circumstance, that led to absence of the petitioner on the date, on which the ex parte decree was passed, that must be taken into account, and not the subsequent steps or events. 8. To understand the approach of the lower appellate Court, the following sentence from its order would be useful: “The explanation given by him for his absence is not sufficient to conclude that he was not absent intentionally.” 9. 8. To understand the approach of the lower appellate Court, the following sentence from its order would be useful: “The explanation given by him for his absence is not sufficient to conclude that he was not absent intentionally.” 9. In other words, the lower appellate Court proceeded as though there exists a presumption that the absence of the petitioner was intentional. Law, no doubt places burden upon the petitioner, to satisfy the Court, about the justification in not appearing on the relevant date. However, presumptions cannot be drawn, either way. 10. For the foregoing reasons; the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.105 of 2006 is allowed and the ex parte decree, dated 23-1-2006, passed in O.S.No.240 of 2005 is set aside. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.