Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI
Patnala Sriramachandra Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Dasarapudi Subramanyam – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) challenging the order dated 16.02.2024, passed in E.A.No.488 of 2019 in E.P.No.45 of 2017 in O.S.No.107 of 2015, by the Executing Court-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari.
3. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff/decree holder in O.S.No.107 of 2015. They shall be referred as in the suit.
4. The plaintiff Dasarapudi Subramanyam filed O.S.No.107 of 2015 against Patnala Sriramachandra Murthy-the defendant, for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,49,330/- based on the mortgage. The defendant remained ex parte. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram passed the ex parte preliminary decree on 22.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.8,49,330/- with interest. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.1637 of 2015 to pass final decree. The defendant filed I.A.No.179 of 2020 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with I.A.No.180 of 2020 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree dated 22.07.2015. These applicat
Judicial proceedings must ensure that all relevant applications are addressed before execution to uphold the principles of justice and fair trial.
The discretion of the trial court to set aside an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is essential to ensure a fair trial, particularly when the opposing party has not been given a reasonable ....
Point of law: Once court accepts explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisiiona....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party approaching the court must do so with clean hands and must not engage in forum shopping. Additionally, the judgment and decree passed ....
The court emphasized that a petitioner must act with diligence and clean hands when invoking Article 227, especially when challenging an ex-parte decree after an unreasonable delay.
Ex parte judgments must adhere to procedural requirements of the CPC; otherwise, such judgments can be ruled illegal and set aside, especially when they affect public rights.
An ex parte decree that is cryptic and non-compliant with procedural requirements cannot be executed; necessary amendments to parties and relief sought must be pursued to validate execution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside an ex-parte order before the Tribunal shall be 30 days, and there would be no ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
