Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1870 (TS)

Komire Laxmi v. Keshireddy Jaipal Reddy

2025-12-18

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
ORDER : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, though arising out of different suits, and as the pleadings in both the revisions are similar, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. C.R.P.No.2265 of 2019 is filed seeking to set aside the Order dated 14.11.2018 in I.A.No.1028 of 2017 in O.S.No.186 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. 3. C.R.P.No.1796 of 2019 is filed seeking to set aside the Order dated 14.11.2018 in I.A.No.1030 of 2017 in O.S.No.187 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. 4. Heard Mr.Bethi Venkateshwarlu , learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant in C.R.P.No.2265 & 1796 of 2019 and Mr.N.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff in the same cases. Perused the record. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties herein shall be referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the defendant in C.R.P.No.2265 & 1796 of 2019, respective respondent/plaintiff filed respective suit against the defendant herein for perpetual injunction, which were decreed on 11.08.2015. 6. The petitioner is the defendant in C.R.P. Nos. 2265 and 1796 of 2019. The respective respondents/plaintiffs filed separate suits against the petitioner/defendant seeking perpetual injunctions to restrain the petitioner/defendant and the legal heirs etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suits in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs on 11.08.2015, granting the requested injunctions. 7. The petitioner/defendant, dissatisfied with the ex-parte decrees dated 11.08.2015 in O.S.No.186 and 187 of 2014, filed I.A.No.1028 of 2017 in O.S.No.186 of 2014 and I.A.No.1030 of 2017 in O.S.No.187 of 2014 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking the trial Court to condone the delay of 689 days in filing the respective petitions and to set-aside the decree in O.S.Nos.186 and 187 of 2014, after hearing both sides, the trial Court opined that the petitioner/defendant failed to explain the reason for condoning the delay of 689 days and dismissed the respective Interlocutory Applications. 8. Assailing the same, the petitioner/defendant filed C.R.P. Nos. 8. Assailing the same, the petitioner/defendant filed C.R.P. Nos. 2265 and 1796 of 2019 seeking to set-aside the Orders dated 14.11.2018 in I.A.No.1028 of 2017 in O.S.No.186 of 2014 and I.A.No.1030 of 2017 in O.S.No.187 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, which were passed against her on the ground that she engaged the counsel and he assured that he will look after the matter but unfortunately, she being an illiterate and innocent village lady and she does not have any legal knowledge as to the legal proceedings and she has two tender aged children, as such she could not proceed with the case and the trial Court came to wrong conclusion that the petitioner/defendant failed to assign cogent reasons to condone the delay of 689 days in filing the I.A.Nos.1029 & 1030 of 2017 to set-aside the ex-parte decrees dated 11.08.2015 in O.S.Nos.186 and 187 of 2014. 9. It is further contended that the petitioner is in possession and cultivation of the suit schedule lands, having lawfully purchased the same from the rightful owner under a registered sale deed , and that such possession and cultivation are well within the knowledge of the entire village. 10. It is further contended that, for the aforesaid reasons, she could not contest the suits. She is in continuous possession and cultivation of the suit schedule property, and if the delay is not condoned and the ex-parte decrees are not set aside, she will lose her valuable rights over the suit schedule property. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs contended that it was the responsibility of the petitioner/defendant to ensure that the cases were properly prosecuted by giving necessary instructions to her counsel from time to time. Having engaged an Advocate and being aware of the pendency of the suits, it was her duty to keep herself informed about the progress of the proceedings. It was further contended that the petitioner/defendant has no manner of right, title, or interest in the suit schedule lands; that she neither purchased the same from anyone nor was she ever in possession thereof; and that the respondents/plaintiffs are the absolute and exclusive owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties. 12. It was further contended that the petitioner/defendant has no manner of right, title, or interest in the suit schedule lands; that she neither purchased the same from anyone nor was she ever in possession thereof; and that the respondents/plaintiffs are the absolute and exclusive owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties. 12. Having heard the submissions of both counsel, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the reasons stated in the petitions were not sufficient to condone the delay of 689 days, as the petitioner/defendant was required to explain the delay on a day-to-day basis. The petitioner/defendant failed to satisfactorily explain such an abnormal delay and, therefore, the learned Judge was not inclined to allow the Interlocutory Applications and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revisions have been filed on the ground that, although the petitioner/defendant had engaged Mr.M.Satyanarayana, Advocate after receipt of summons, the Advocate did not file the written statement, resulting in the passing of ex-parte judgments. 13. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider the fact that the petitioner/defendant is an illiterate widow, having no support from any person and burdened with the responsibility of maintaining her tender-aged children, eking out her livelihood through agricultural work. It is submitted that the learned Judge did not take into account the submission that the Advocate, who had assured the petitioner of attending to the matter, failed to do so. Owing to her innocence and illiteracy, the petitioner could not effectively follow up the proceedings. 14. It is further contended that the petitioner/defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties since the date of her purchase, and that the trial Court, without properly appreciating the pleadings, dismissed the Interlocutory Applications in a routine manner. 15. It is further contended that the husband of the petitioner/defendant died on 03.04.2004 in a motor vehicle accident involving a Tractor bearing Registration No. AP R 4864, which was driven by its driver and owned by the respondent/plaintiff. It is submitted that, subsequent to the said incident, a Panchayat was convened in the village, during which the respondent/plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the petitioner/defendant and her children towards compensation. However, only a portion of the agreed amount was paid, and the balance remains unpaid. It is submitted that, subsequent to the said incident, a Panchayat was convened in the village, during which the respondent/plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the petitioner/defendant and her children towards compensation. However, only a portion of the agreed amount was paid, and the balance remains unpaid. It is alleged that, owing to the said dispute and with a view to wreak vengeance against the petitioner/defendant, the respective respondents/plaintiffs instituted the suits for injunction on the basis of fabricated and concocted documents, in collusion with the vendors of the petitioner/defendant, despite the fact that the respondents/plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit schedule property. 16. It is further contended that the trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Applications without properly appreciating the reasons set out in the supporting affidavits and in the absence of valid and sustainable grounds. The Court failed to take into consideration the humanitarian aspects involved in the matters, particularly the fact that the petitioner is an illiterate widow with minor children and that she possesses valuable rights in respect of the suit schedule properties. 17. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant is a widow, aged about 40 years as on the date of filing of the revisions, and she is claiming title over the suit schedule property. A perusal of the plaint shows that the respondents/plaintiffs are also claiming title over the very same suit schedule property, allegedly purchased from the same vendor from whom the defendant claims title. In that regard, the defendant is stated to have purchased the said land in the year 1999 from Sri Jana Mallaiah and Sri Jana Swamy under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 219 of 2004, dated 23.01.2004, for valid consideration, in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.30 gts in Survey No. 366/A and Ac.0.29 gts in Survey No. 366/B (compact land), situated at Pothireddypally Village, Karimnagar District. 18. Both the petitioner/defendant and the respondents/plaintiffs contend that they are in possession of the subject properties. It is relevant to note that the suits filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant are only for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 19. It is seen from the record that the petitioner/defendant claims to have filed a written statement along with material papers and to have obtained a certified copy thereof. 19. It is seen from the record that the petitioner/defendant claims to have filed a written statement along with material papers and to have obtained a certified copy thereof. However, as per the case of the respective plaintiffs, the written statement said to have been filed on 31.07.2017 appears to have been filed only along with an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, and prior to thereto no written statement was filed. 20. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is evident that sufficient time was granted to the petitioner/defendant for filing the written statement. Notice in I.A. No. 664 of 2014 was served on 27.02.2015, and despite granting more than six months’ time, an ex-parte decree came to be passed on 11.08.2015. However, the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was filed only on 31.07.2017, after a delay of more than two years. 21. The explanation offered for the delay is that the petitioner/defendant is a widow with tender-aged children and was eking out her livelihood through agricultural work, and therefore could not actively pursue the matter with her counsel. While there is a responsibility cast upon the Advocate to keep the client informed either by issuing a letter or notice regarding the necessity of filing of the written statement or else there is possibility of passing of an ex-parte decree, though there is also a corresponding duty on the part of the litigant to follow up with the counsel and remain vigilant. In the present case, the petitioner/defendant appears to have remained silent for more than two years. No doubt, the responsibility is shared, the Advocate is expected to inform the client, and the party is expected to follow up to ascertain the status of the case. 22. Considering the background of the petitioner/defendant and the place from which she hails, it cannot reasonably be expected that, after filing the Vakalat, she would be aware of the requirement to file a written statement within the prescribed period of 30 days, or even within the extended period of 90 days. A woman hailing from a rural background cannot be presumed to have knowledge of procedural requirements following the filing of a Vakalat, including the necessity of filing a written statement. A woman hailing from a rural background cannot be presumed to have knowledge of procedural requirements following the filing of a Vakalat, including the necessity of filing a written statement. In such circumstances, a greater duty is cast upon the counsel to inform the party about the procedural steps to be taken, including the filing of the written statement after entering appearance. 23. In the present case, though the petitioner/defendant engaged counsel, no written statement was filed on her behalf, and consequently, she was set ex-parte on 16.07.2015, and the suits were decreed on 11.08.2015. 24. Considering the above circumstances and the background from which the petitioner/defendant hails, this Court is of the opinion that the reasons cited by the petitioner constitute sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay in filing the petitions to set aside the decrees in O.S. Nos. 186 and 187 of 2014 deserves to be condoned. The finding of the trial Court that the petitioner/defendant was required to explain the delay on a day-to-day basis cannot be mechanically applied to the facts of the present cases. 25. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner/defendant hails from a rural background and is a single parent of tender-aged children without any effective support, this Court finds the present cases to be fit for interference. Consequently, the findings recorded by the trial Court and the orders passed by the learned Judge are liable to be set aside. 26. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, and the Orders dated 14.11.2018 passed in I.A. Nos. 1028 and 1030 of 2017 in O.S. Nos. 186 and 187 of 2014 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, are set aside. The delay is hereby condoned, subject to the condition that the petitioner/defendant shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respective respondent/plaintiff within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order. Failure to comply with this condition shall result in the vacating of the orders passed by this Court. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.