Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1733 (TS)

Devulapalli Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi v. G. Ramana

2025-12-05

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. Heard Sri Abhinandhan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/Judgment-Debtor and Sri Akul Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs/Decree Holders. 2. C.M.A.No.326 of 2023 is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri in I.A.No.158 of 2022 in O.S.No.287 of 2010, filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to aside the exparte Decree and judgment dated 29.12.2015 passed in the said suit by condoning the delay of 2023 days. 3. C.R.P.No.1873 of 2023 is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri in E.P.No.15 of 2016 filed for execution of the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.287 of 2010. 4. Since, the present Appeal and the Revision Petition arise out of the same suit between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. The facts leading to filing of these cases are that the appellant herein is the defendant in the suit instituted by the respondents for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 04.12.2008. During pendency of the suit, the appellant herein filed her written statement on 22.06.2011. Later, the appellant was set exparte and remained exparte. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court passed an exparte decree and judgment dated 29.12.2015 directing the appellant herein to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration within a period of three months. 6. Aggrieved by the exparte decree and judgment, the appellant herein filed I.A.No.158 of 2021 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the exparte decree and judgment dated 29.12.2015 passed in O.S.No.287 of 2010 by condoning the delay of 2023 days in filing the petition. 7. The learned Trial Court, considering various contentions raised by the parties, by order dated 28.11.2022, held that the appellant/defendant did not appear before the Court and her contention that she was not aware about passing of the judgment and decree, cannot be believed. 7. The learned Trial Court, considering various contentions raised by the parties, by order dated 28.11.2022, held that the appellant/defendant did not appear before the Court and her contention that she was not aware about passing of the judgment and decree, cannot be believed. The learned Trial Court further held that the appellant/defendant is intentionally avoiding to continue the proceedings and even there is no single document or paper filed to show that the appellant was suffering with emotional and mental illness during the period stated by her. The learned Trial Court therefore held that the appellant is not entitled for the relief of condonation of delay of 2023 days in setting aside the exparte decree as there was intentional delay on the part of the appellant. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed C.M.A.No.326 of 2023. 9. With respect to C.R.P.No.1873 of 2023, the same is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2023 passed in E.P.No.15 of 2016 in O.S.No.287 of 2010 directing the respondents/Decree Holders to file the Draft copy of Sale Deed for valuation purpose before sub-registrar. 10. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence and material placed on record, held that according to the counter of the appellant/judgment debtor, she failed to appear before the Court and let in any evidence to show that she did not enter into agreement of sale with the respondents/decree-holders in the suit, and after thorough enquiry, decree was passed in favour of the respondents/decree-holders. The learned Trial Court further held that as the decree is in favour of the respondents/decree holders, they are entitled to obtain sale deed and accordingly, directed the decree-holders to file draft copy of sale deed before the Sub-Registrar for valuation of the sale deed. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that learned Trial Court did not properly consider the grounds of suffering from emotional and mental illness, since the appellant lost her husband and father in two separate motor accidents in a short span of time, and that the appellant being a single woman, was unable to come out from the trauma of the tragedy. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant filed her written statement in the suit on 22.06.2011 categorically disputing the claim of the respondents, and thereafter the appellant could not give further instructions to the counsel to pursue the case as she was suffering from emotional and mental illness due to the loss of her husband and father in motor accidents and she is a single woman. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that for her prolonged mental illness, the appellant underwent treatment from Apollo Hospitals, and in the meanwhile, she was set exparte in the suit due to her non- appearance and subsequently, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents vide judgment and decree dated 29.12.2015. 13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions in A.Palaniappan Vs. V.Thiruppathi, 2017 SCC Online Mad 10250, Raj Kishore Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2009) 2 SCC 692 P.Buchanna Vs. B.Yadagiri , 2017(3) ALD 583 and N. Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy , (1998) 7 SCC 123 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant has not shown reasonable cause much less sufficient cause to condone the delay of 2023 days to set aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.287 of 2010. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the appellant is well aware of the judgment and decree passed against her in the suit, since the appellant made an application on 24.02.2016 for obtaining certified copy of the exparte decree, vide C.A.No.919/2016 and the same was supplied to her on 22.03.2016, and therefore, the contention of the appellant that she came to know about the execution proceedings vide paper publication on 19.06.2018 is absolutely incorrect. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the object of fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy for fixing a lifespan to a legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has not chosen to explain the delay from 2016 onwards till 2021. He therefore contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.158 of 2022 observing that the appellant could have approached the Court earlier instead of waiting for a period of 5 months after obtaining the stay in Execution Proceedings in E.A.No.9 of 2018. 17. He therefore contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.158 of 2022 observing that the appellant could have approached the Court earlier instead of waiting for a period of 5 months after obtaining the stay in Execution Proceedings in E.A.No.9 of 2018. 17. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the learned Trial Court rightly observed that the appellant was intentionally avoiding the continuation of proceedings, and sought for dismissal of these cases. 18. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decisions in H.Guruswamy and others Vs. A.Krishnaiah, since deceased by LRs , 2025 SCC Online SC 54 , State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. RamkumarChoudhary , 2024 SCC Online SC 3612 , MmajjiSannemma alias Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others , AIR 2022 SC 332 and MoorlaNaganjali Vs. MorlaJanardhana Rao , 2023(5) ALD 298 (AP) 19. I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions raised by either parties, and perused the record. 20. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC holding that there was an intentional delay on the part of the appellant. However, while addressing the point for consideration, the learned Trial Court itself observed that when a person loses someone to whom they are attached, whether a parent, spouse, children or close family member and such sudden loss can lead to emotional distress and mental illness. Despite this observation, the Learned Trial Court failed to consider that the appellant had lost both her husband and father within a short span of time in unfortunate accident cases. These were the closest and most significant persons in her life and family. In such circumstances, a single woman suffering mental trauma and emotional instability is neither uncommon nor unexpected. The Trial Court, without due consideration of this vital aspect, failed to afford the appellant an opportunity to contest the suit, even though she had filed a written statement disputing the respondents’ claim. 21. The Learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant became aware of the ex parte decree only upon publication of notice in the newspaper dated 19.06.2018, by which time she had recovered from her mental illness. She immediately approached the Learned Trial Court thereafter seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. 21. The Learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant became aware of the ex parte decree only upon publication of notice in the newspaper dated 19.06.2018, by which time she had recovered from her mental illness. She immediately approached the Learned Trial Court thereafter seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. In these circumstances, the Trial Court ought to  have allowed the petition and afforded the appellant a chance to contest the suit. 22. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in A.Palaniappan (supra), the Madras High Court, while considering similar circumstances addressing the exparte decree with delay of 741 days, held that the learned Trial Court has not given substantial credence to the plea of delay on account of death of two family members of the petitioners therein and acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. The Madras High Court further held in the said decision that it is a fit case where the petitioner therein should be given an opportunity to put forth his case by way of appeal, rather than curtailing his rights by sticking on technicalities. 23. Similarly, in the judgment reported in P.Buchanna (supra), it was held that the Court below ought to have been more liberal in its approach and should have also considered the fact that the landed property rights were at stake in the suit, and as such, the Court below should therefore have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant therein to put forth his case. It was further held that, Courts are not expected to adopt a hidebound and pedantic approach while dealing with applications of this nature and the larger perspective must be kept in mind, balancing the interests of justice and those of the rival parties. 24. On the other hand, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in H.Guruswamy (supra) as well as other judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand, which are carried in appeal at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. 25. 24. On the other hand, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in H.Guruswamy (supra) as well as other judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand, which are carried in appeal at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. 25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, and particularly the fact that the appellant lost two crucial members of her immediate family, i.e. her husband and father, within a short span of time, this Court is of the view that she deserves a fair opportunity to participate in the trial proceedings as she filed written statement disputing the respondent’s claim but couldn’t pursue the proceedings due to mental and emotional trauma. Such an opportunity is essential for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties and to meet the ends of justice. 26. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant, being a single woman who suffered extraordinary mental trauma due to the tragic deaths of her immediate family members, deserves to be heard on merits. Accordingly, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the appellant to contest the suit on merits. 27. While opposing vehemently on merits, however at the Court’s instance on the question of costs, learned counsel for the respondents, in an admirable display of fairness and sensitivity, requested that no costs be imposed considering the appellant’s status as a single woman/widow. 28. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.326 of 2023 is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri in I.A.No.158 of 2022 in O.S.No.287 of 2010 is set aside, and O.S.No.287 of 2010 is restored to the file of the said Court. 29. C.R.P.No.1873 of 2023 is also allowed. The order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, 1 3 Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri in E.P.No.15 of 2016 filed for execution of the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.287 of 2010 is also set aside. 30. The learned Trial Court shall endeavor to dispose of O.S.No.287 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 31. As a sequel, interim orders granted, if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.