Negligence in pursuing legal rights disqualifies parties from condoning lengthy delays in appeals, proving insufficient cause under procedural law.

JUDGMENT :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

The present appeal is instituted by the unsuccessful defendants 7 and 8 aggrieved by order dated 04.07.2016 passed in I.A. No.694/2017 in O.S. No.147 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, rejecting application filed for setting aside ex parte decree dated 25.02.2015.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that:

(a) O.S. No.147 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for partition of plaint A schedule property into five equal shares and for allotment of one such share with metes and bounds and for separate possession. The suit was instituted on 07.07.2014. Plaintiff instituted suit against her father (D1), two brothers (D2 & D3) and sister (D4), besides her maternal aunts i.e., her father’s sisters (D5 & D6) and the subsequent purchasers (D7 to D9). It was claimed in the suit that suit schedule properties, in particular plaint A schedule property, was purchased in the name of her father and plaint B schedule in the name of her mother by grandfather of plaintiff from ancestral funds and he died intestate, therefore, the properties being ancestral properties and plaintiff and defendants being class – I legal heirs were entitled for share in the said property.

(b) It is also stated that defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 have fraudulently executed sale deeds in respect of items 1 and 2 of schedule A and schedule B properties in favour of defendants 7 to 9 on 28.06.2014, which are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

(c) Notices were issued to defendants. D1 to D8 entered appearance through counsel by filing vakalath on 19.08.2014. The suit was adjourned for filing written statement. On 19.09.2014, the defendants sought further time to file written statement. On 21.11.2014, neither written statement came to be filed nor was there appearance for defendants, thereby D1 to D8 were set ex parte. After few hearings, ultimately, preliminary decree came to be passed on 25.02.2015.

(d) Defendants 7 and 8 filed I.A. No.694/2015 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree within one month of passing the said decree. In the affidavit filed along with the said application, it was specifically pleaded that the defendants 7 and 8 after receiving summons, entered appearance in the matter by engaging advocate and sought for time for filing written statement, however, as their vendors informed that the matter would be settled out of the court and the suit would be withdrawn, they did not chose to file written statement and only recently, they came to know of the ex parte decree, therefore, they were misguided by the plaintiff in securing the preliminary decree, on such reasons, they sought to seek setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree.

(f) Plaintiff filed counter denying the contents of I.A., inter alia stating that the matter was adjourned many a times granting sufficient time for filing of written statement, despite the same, all defendants failed to file written statement even after extended time and having no other go, rightly the trial court set them ex parte by order dated 21.11.2014 and thereafter, the said suit came to be preliminary decreed on 25.02.2015, therefore, defendants were negligent and had no bona fides in pursuing the suit. It is also stated that before filing the suit, the plaintiff had issued paper publication on 13.06.2014 intimating that she got right over suit schedule properties and cautioned not to enter into any transaction with the same and further al