JUDGMENT :

1) Heard Sri. V.N. Chakrapani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri. Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.

2) The Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 filed O.S. No. 454 of 2010 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and damages. It was later on transferred and registered as O.S. No. 285 of 2014 [Jakkadanam Radha Vs. Anjuru Janaki @ J. Janaki @ Nirmala and another] and is pending before IIIrd Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

3) The Petitioner is the Defendant No. 2; the 1st Respondent is the Plaintiff and the Respondent is Defendant No. 1, in O.S. No. 285 of 2014 pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

4) The 2nd Respondent filed written statement.

5) The Petitioner did not file written statement.

6) On 15.11.2010, Order to proceed exparte was passed against the Petitioner.

7) After twelve [12] years, the Petitioner, on 20.04.2022, filed I.A. No. 821 of 2022, to set-aside the Order, dated 15.11.2010 under Order IX Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure [in short ‘C.P.C.’]

8) I.A. No. 821 of 2022 has been rejected by the Order, dated 06.12.2022, which is impugned in this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9) Sri. V.N. Chakrapani, submits that the elders in the Village intervened to settle the dispute. The Petitioner believed that the dispute would be resolved, but recently the Petitioner came to know that the 1st Respondent was contesting the case and consequently the application was filed for setting aside the Order, dated 15.11.2010.

10) Sri. Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, submits that the plea of elderly intervention for settlement is incorrect.

11) He submits that the application was filed after twelve [12] years which is highly belated. The Suit is at the stage of cross-examination of Plaintiff No.1. There is no illegality in rejection of the Petitioner’s I.A. No.821 of 2022.

12) I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

13) The point for consideration is, “whether the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.”

14) Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. provides as under:-

“7. Procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance: ---Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex-parte, and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance.”

15) In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the opening words of Order IX, Rule 7 CPC are “Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte”. It was held that they assume that there is to be a hearing on the date to which the suit stands adjourned. If the entirety of the ‘hearing’ of the suit has been completed and the Court being competent to pronounce the judgment then and there, adjourns the suit merely for the purpose of pronouncing judgment under Order XX, Rule 1, there is clearly no adjournment of ‘the hearing’ of the suit, for there is nothing more to be heard in the suit.

16) It is apt to refer paragraph No.18 in Arjun Singh (supra) as under:

“18. So far as the case before us is concerned the order under appeal cannot be sustained even on the basis that the finding recorded in disposing of an application under O. IX. Rule 7 would, operate as res judicata when the same question of fact is raised in a subsequent application to set aside an exparte decree under Order IX, Rule 13. This is because it is not disputed that in order to operate as res judicata, the court dealing with the first matter must have had jurisdiction and competency to entertain and decide the issue. Adverting to the facts of the present appeal, this would primarily turn upon the proper construction