Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1030 (TS)

Mellacheruvu Varalaxmi v. Dosapati Narayana Rao

2025-09-12

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellandu in I.A.No.136 of 2024 in O.S.No.92 of 2023, dated 26.04.2025, whereby the petition seeking condonation of delay of 251 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 14.02.2024 was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri R.R.Kalyan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent filed a suit vide O.S.No.92 of 2023, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.4,86,000/- against the petitioner before the trial Court and the learned Magistrate passed an ex-parte decree on 14.02.2024, though the petitioner had not received the summons. He further submitted that the trial Court issued summons on 18.01.2024, wherein it was mentioned that the suit was posted to 02.02.2024 and the petitioner was directed to file a written statement within 30 days from the receipt of the summons. However, even before the expiry of the said period, the trial Court passed the ex-parte decree, which is non est in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioner, upon coming to know about the passing of the ex-parte decree, immediately filed an application seeking to set aside the same. Along with the said application, he also filed an application vide I.A.No.136 of 2024, seeking condonation of 251 days delay in presenting the petition to set aside the decree. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, dismissed the application. The impugned order passed by the Court below is contrary to law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the Court below issued summons through the Court process server, who served the summons and obtained the petitioner’s signature as proof of service. Inspite of the service of summons, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and allowed the trial Court to pass the decree ex-parte. Pursuant to the decree dated 14.02.2024, the respondent filed an Execution Petition and only after receiving notice in the execution proceedings the petitioner filed an application seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree, along with an application for condonation of an abnormal delay of 251 days, without assigning any reasons. Pursuant to the decree dated 14.02.2024, the respondent filed an Execution Petition and only after receiving notice in the execution proceedings the petitioner filed an application seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree, along with an application for condonation of an abnormal delay of 251 days, without assigning any reasons. The trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner after giving cogent reasons. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the respondent filed a suit vide O.S.No.92 of 2023 for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,86,000/- before the trial Court, against the petitioner based on a promissory note. In the said suit, the trial Court issued summons to the petitioner on 18.01.2024 and posted the suit to 02.02.2024. The petitioner did not appear on 02.02.2024. Due to the non-appearance of the petitioner, the trial Court made the petitioner ex-parte and on 14.02.2024 passed an ex-parte decree. 6. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the trial Court has given that 30 days time to the petitioner for filing written statement from the date of receipt of the summons. The said period was set to expire on 22.02.2024. However, the Court below even before the expiry of the said period, passed the ex-parte decree on 14.02.2024. Upon perusal of copy of the suit summon, it is revealed that the Court below had issued summons in the suit on 18.01.2024, directing the petitioner to appear on 02.02.2024 either in person or through counsel. Despite receipt of the summons, the petitioner had failed to appear on the above said date and due to his non-appearance, she was made set ex-parte. Thereafter, on 14.02.2024, the Court below after hearing the plaintiff passed the decree. 7. Despite receipt of the summons, the petitioner had failed to appear on the above said date and due to his non-appearance, she was made set ex-parte. Thereafter, on 14.02.2024, the Court below after hearing the plaintiff passed the decree. 7. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive the summons is concerned, the copy of summons reveals that the process server after serving summons he obtained the acknowledgment and signature of the petitioner in the summons copy and filed the same before the Court below, especially the petitioner has not disputed her signature on the copy of the summons nor has taken any steps in I.A.No.136 of 2024 to examine the process server to prove the above said contentions. 8. It is relevant to mention that the respondent filed suit on 16.12.2023 and the Court below passed ex-parte decree on 14.02.2024 within a short period of two months. However, the Court below dismissed the application i.e., I.A.No.136 of 2024 seeking to condone the delay of 251 days in filing set aside the ex-parte decree dated 14.02.2024, on the ground that the petitioner has not given sufficient reasons. 9. It is well settled law that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the cause of justice. The aforesaid principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India , [ (2023) 10 SCC 531 ] and the decision rendered by the three-Judge Bench in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji , [ (1987) 2 SCC 107 ] was referred to with approval and in paragraph 41, it was held as under: “ 41. Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival contentions, we feel that the High Court's decision [Union of India v. Sheo Raj, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5511] to condone the delay on account of the first respondent's inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons assigned therein, does not suffer from any error warranting interference. As the aforementioned judgments have shown, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State. As the aforementioned judgments have shown, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests.” 10. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems that one opportunity be given to the petitioner to put forth his grievances before the Court below. 11. In order to render substantial justice to both the parties while exercising the supervisory powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.136 of 2024 in O.S.No.92 of 2023, dated 26.04.2025 as well as the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC are allowed and ex- parte decree dated 14.02.2024 is set aside, subject to the condition of petitioner depositing 1/3 rd of suit amount within a period of two (2) months in suit account before the Court below. On such deposit, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellandu is directed to dispose of the suit i.e., O.S.No.92 of 2023, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter. In default of depositing the amount as mentioned supra, respondent is entitled to proceed with the execution petition in accordance with law. Both the parties are directed to cooperate with Court below for disposal of suit i.e., O.S.No.92 of 2023 without taking undue adjournments. 12. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.