Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 777 (TS)

Marineni Jaya Rani v. Balla Vijaya Susheela

2025-06-09

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 11.01.2024, passed by the I Additional District Judge at Nalgonda in C.M.A. No.8 of 2021. 2. Heard Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasham Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.103 of 2011 to declare Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA bearing No.7418 of 2011, dated 06.06.2011 as null and void and also for perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. 5. Defendants entered appearance filed written statement, issues were framed and the matter was coming up for trial, and was posted on 22.09.2017 conditionally for evidence of plaintiff. On 22.09.2017 plaintiff failed to adduce evidence and requested for adjournment. The trial Court dismissed the suit for default with an observation that though the suit was coming up for evidence of plaintiff since 10.04.2014, and despite conditional order that in the event plaintiff fails to adduce evidence, suit will be dismissed, the plaintiff did not get ready and thus dismissed suit. 6. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.1011 of 2017 for restoration of suit. In the affidavit filed in support of application, it is averred that petitioner could not appear before the Court as she was suffering from ill-health and also, there were heavy rains at Hyderabad and thus prayed to restore the suit. 7. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed counter resisting the application and contended that there is no iota of truth in the contentions of the plaintiff that she was suffering with ill-health and there was heavy rain at Hyderabad on 22.09.2017 and that with an intention to drag on the matter, plaintiff wantonly allowed the suit to be dismissed and thus, prayed to dismiss the application. 8. The trial Court considering the contentions of both the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 23.12.2020 with an observation that no grounds are mentioned in the affidavit showing the bona fides to set aside the dismissal order dated 22.09.2017 and that the application is devoid of any merit. 9. 8. The trial Court considering the contentions of both the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 23.12.2020 with an observation that no grounds are mentioned in the affidavit showing the bona fides to set aside the dismissal order dated 22.09.2017 and that the application is devoid of any merit. 9. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2020, plaintiff preferred appeal vide C.M.A. No.8 of 2021 and the first appellate Court vide impugned order dated 11.01.2024 dismissed the C.M.A with an observation that the trial Court already dismissed the application basing on the material on record and that plaintiff was not vigilant in pursuing the matter and that no sufficient cause has been shown for not adducing evidence on behalf of plaintiff from 22.01.2014 to 22.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was dismissed for default on 22.09.2017 and immediately within a period of 15 days application was filed for restoration of suit narrating the reasons for her absence on 22.09.2017 and that the application was pending for adjudication for a period of three years and was ultimately dismissed on 23.12.2020. He would further submit that the trial Court ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence since valuable rights in immovable property are involved. He further submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to exercise the discretionary powers vested on them and erroneously dismissed the petition. He further submitted that the suit was posted for evidence and despite specific direction from the High Court not to pass any adverse orders during Covid period, the appellate Court dismissed the C.M.A., and finally, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. Along with revision petition, the petitioner has also filed a few medical bills dated 13.12.2018 and 27.09.2018. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the trial Court and first appellate Court rightly dismissed the application since the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence despite conditional order. He would further submit that the suit was coming up for evidence of plaintiff since 22.01.2014 and as the plaintiff was not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter, the trial Court and first appellate Court rightly dismissed the suit as well as appeal. He would further submit that the suit was coming up for evidence of plaintiff since 22.01.2014 and as the plaintiff was not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter, the trial Court and first appellate Court rightly dismissed the suit as well as appeal. He would further submit that even in the application for restoration of suit, no proper reason was assigned and plaintiff failed to explain as to why she could not adduce evidence since 22.01.2014 and also specific reasons for non- appearance on 22.09.2017. He finally submitted that the revision is devoid of merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. A perusal of the record would disclose that the suit was coming up for evidence of plaintiff from 22.01.2014 and was posted on 22.09.2017 conditionally for evidence of plaintiff. However, neither the plaintiff appeared nor evidence was adduced on that date and therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default as plaintiff was not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter. Even in the application filed for restoration of suit, except saying that the petitioner was suffering from ill-health and that there were heavy rains in Hyderabad, no proper reason or explanation has been offered by the plaintiff for non-appearance on 22.09.2017 and also the reasons for not adducing evidence since 22.01.2014. Admittedly, the suit was coming up for evidence of plaintiff since 22.01.2014, despite conditional order, plaintiff failed to adduce evidence on 22.09.2017 and again time was sought on his behalf and further the plaintiff failed to substantiate the reason for her absence on 22.09.2017 by producing any material on record.. 13. The medical record placed before this Court by the petitioner plaintiff would only indicates that she is a diabetic patient and she was advised to follow up diabetic diet and do physical exercises etc. and thus, the plaintiff was not suffering with any serious health issue. 14. In the light of the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and as such, this Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 15 . Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.