Procedural rules must favor justice, allowing parties to present their case despite missed timelines if sufficient cause for absence is shown, per Order IX Rule 7 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. The petitioner-M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., is the decree holder. An award dated 14.06.2018 in Arbitration Case No.434/2012 was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The 3rd respondent is Sole Arbitrator and is served.

3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed application/petition under Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside the award, numbered as Arbitration OP No.540 of 2018 in the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The petitioner could not appear on 08.11.2019, and also could not file the counter. The petitioner was set ex parte on 08.11.2019. The petitioner filed IA No.1261 of 2019 under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C., to set aside the order dated 08.11.2019 alongwith the counter. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed objection to dismiss IA No.1261 of 2019. The petition IA No.1261 of 2019 has been dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2021 by learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

4. Challenging the order dated 24.12.2021, the present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Notices were issued to the respondents, through registered post, pursuant to the orders dated 11.08.2022, 08.09.2022, 14.11.2024 and 05.12.2024. Fresh steps were also taken. As per the office report the notice sent to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are unserved and returned with the postal endorsement 'no such person in this address'. A perusal of the registered envelope shows that the notices were sent at the address mentioned in this petition, which is the same as given by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their Arbitration OP No.540 of 2018, for setting aside the award filed by them. The petitioner has filed the memo of proof of service dated 11.12.2024, stating that the Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, appearing in the Arbitration OP No.540 of 2018 was served through registered post on 11.12.2024. By order dated 14.11.2024, the petitioner was granted permission to serve the notice on the Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Arbitration OP No.540 of 2018. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has also filed a memo seeking adjournment of the Arbitration OP No.540 of 2018 before the learned Court below on the ground of the pendency of the CRP in this Court. He submits that consequently, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served and have notice of the civil revision petition but they are avoiding to appear, to delay the proceedings with respect to the award against them.

6. From the aforesaid, we are of the view and hold that the notices are served to the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

7. We proceed to decide the civil revision petition finally.

8. Heard Ms. A. Priyanka, learned Counsel representing Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order to proceed ex parte dated 08.11.2019 could not be legally passed, if the counter was not filed. She submits that if the counter was not filed within the time and even if the Court was not inclined to extend the time, the right to file the counter could be closed but the order to proceed ex parte could not be passed for that reason.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next submits that in any case, the cause shown in Para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of IA No.1261 of 2019 was sufficient for recall of the order dated 08.11.2019. She placed reliance in M.V. Ramana Rao v. N