The principles of natural justice require parties to be afforded a fair hearing, and ex parte judgments may be reviewed if proper service was not established.

JUDGMENT :

1. The applications for condonation of delay i.e., IA No.2 of 2024 and review application i.e., IA No.3 of 2024 in both the C.R.Ps., are filed.

2. Any objection to the IA No.2 of 2024 in both the matters has not been filed by the respondents.

3. The review is IA No.3 of 2024 in both the matters.

4. The review petitioners are respondent Nos.1 to 3 in CRP No.242 of 2024 and CRP No.361 of 2024. They are challenging the judgment and order dated 18.06.2024 passed in C.R.P.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the review petition are the petitioners in C.R.P. The respondent Nos.3 to 6 in review petition are respondent Nos.4 to 7 in C.R.P.

6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed OP No.607 of 2017 in the Court of the Principal District Judge at Visakhapatnam under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 for the following reliefs :

"(a) For conducting detailed enquiry as enumerated under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act and handover the properties and operation of bank accounts of both the petitioner societies to the Office bearers who are deserving to manage them by considering the events took place after OP Nos.1053/2007 and 1424/2007 for GUM Society and OP No.786/2008 for TAPP Society;

(b) for a declaration that the 1st respondent and his henchmen obtained certified copies of the renewals from the 5th respondent on 18.02.2017 for GUM SOCIETY and on 17.03.2017 for TAPP SOCIETY by incorporating the first respondent and his henchmen's names as Office Bearers by playing fraud;

(c) For consequential relief of injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and their henchmen from using the said certified copies obtained from the 5th respondent before any public officers, as well as bankers i.e., D5 to D7 to avoid unwarranted nuisance; D4 no even as proforma party;

(d) for costs of this petition; and

(e) for such other relief/reliefs, which the Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case;"

7. In the said O.P., the review petitioners (respondent Nos.1 to 3 in O.P.) filed IA No.612 of 2023, that the O.P., was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. The application was allowed on 14.12.2023. Consequently, the OP No.607 of 2017 was dismissed on the same date.

8. Challenging the order dated 14.12.2023, the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the CRP No.242 of 2024 and CRP No.361 of 2024, which have been allowed by common order dated 18.06.2024.

9. The C.R.P(s), were allowed after observing in Para 3 as under :

"3. Notice to respondents was ordered in both the CRPs but respondent Nos.1 to 3 refused the notices and hence the service was deemed effected."

10. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G. Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the review petitioners, submits that in the C.R.P(s), the address of the review petitioners was incorrectly shown as "Door No.39-3-104/1-3, Sector-9, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam". The correct address is "Door No.39-9-104/1-3". He has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, in OP No.607 of 2007, in which the address shows is "Door No.39-9-104/1-3, Sector-9, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam", which was submitted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein (petitioners of O.P). He submits that the notices in C.R.P., were not served. They were not refused by the review petitioners. However, the writ Co