Vyasyaraju Maheswara Rao, S/o Satyanarayana Raju vs Boyina Govinda Rajulu, S/o Late Boyinaramanamurthy

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(AP) 767

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Vyasyaraju Maheswara Rao, S/o Satyanarayana Raju – Petitioner
Versus
Boyina Govinda Rajulu, S/o Late Boyinaramanamurthy – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No: 19 Of 2023
Decided On : 16-06-2026

Important Points

When a vakalat is filed but no written statement is submitted, the court should forfeit the right to file the statement under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC instead of setting the defendant ex parte under Order IX Rule 6 CPC.

Subject

Civil Law - Civil Procedure

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.227
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.3 R.4(2), O.5 R.1, O.9 R.6, O.9 R.6(1)(a), O.9 R.7

Headnote

The petitioner challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India an order passed in I.A.No.19 of 2021 in O.S.No. 32 of 2016, whereby the trial court set aside an ex parte order dated 29.08.2016. The underlying suit sought specific performance of an agreement of sale and declaration of certain documents as null and void. The first defendant had been set ex parte after failing to file a written statement despite a vakalat being filed. The court examined the interplay between Order IX Rule 6 and Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was reasoned that once a vakalat is filed, the advocate represents the party; therefore, if a written statement is not filed within the stipulated time, the proper course is to forfeit the right to file the statement under Order VIII Rule 10 rather than setting the defendant ex parte under Order IX Rule 6. However, the court observed that procedural laws are handmaidens of justice and substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of without modifying the order under revision, directing the respondent No.1 to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the revision petitioner.

Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner: Smt. T.V. Sri Devi, Learned Counsel
For The Respondent: Sri Ch Praveen Kumar, Learned Counsel Representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, Learned Counsel

ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

Heard Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ch. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Plaintiff No.2 in the suit O.S.No.32 of 2016 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge –cum- Family Court, Srikakulam, filed the above Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the docket order, dated 30.03.2022, in I.A.No.19 of 2021.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this C.R.P. are referred to as per their array in the suit.

4. Plaintiffs, two in number, filed the above suit to declare three registered documents, dated 11.05.2012, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3, as null, void and unenforceable; for specific performance of the agreement of sale; and in alternative for refund of advance amount received by defendant No.1 and recovery of compensation amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- etc.,

5. In the suit, defendant No.1 was set ex parte on 29.08.2016. Later, issues were framed on 04.07.2017. Subsequently, defendant No.2 died, and no steps were taken. Initially, the suit against defendant No.2 was abated. Later, the legal representative of defendant No.2 was brought on record.

6. Subsequently, defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.19 of 2021 under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‗C.P.C.‘) to set aside the ex parte order, dated 29.08.2016.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it was contended, inter alia, that the suit was posted to 19.09.2019 for appearance; that the suit was posted to 03.01.2020 for filing of written statement of defendant No.1; that defendant No.1 could not appear before the Court as he was suffering from liver disease and underwent surgery for liver transplantation and thus, prayed to set aside the ex-parte order, dated 29.08.2016.

8. A counter-affidavit was filed by plaintiff No.2. It was contended, inter alia, that defendant No.1 filed an application on 22.08.2016 seeking extension of time to file a written statement. The suit was posted to 29.08.2016, on which date, defendant No.1 was set ex parte. The time stipulated for filing a written statement elapsed long ago in 2016, and defendant No.1 failed to produce a medical record in support of his contention. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the application.

9. The trial Court, by docket order, dated 30.03.2022, allowed the petition, aggrieved by which the above C.R.P. was filed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff No.2 would submit that no reasons were assigned by the trial court while allowing the petition. She would submit that the written statement filed by defendant No.1 ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court since the statement was filed beyond the period prescribed in C.P.C.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 supported the order passed by the trial Court.

12. The point for consideration is:

"Whether the docket order, dated 30.03.2022 in I.A.No.19 of 2022 in O.S.No.32 of 2016, suffers from any illegality warranting interference?

13. This Court called for the entire docket proceedings in O.S.No.32 of 2016, through the registry. The docket proceedings were forwarded, and a printout of the same is placed before the Court.

14. Initially, an interim order was granted in C.R.P. on 05.01.2023, and the same was extended on two occasions i.e. on 02.02.2023 and 28.02.2023, for a period of four weeks on each occasion. Thereafter, the interim order was not extended. Thus, the stay expired on 28.03.2023.

15. However, a perusal of the docket proceedings discloses that the suit was adjourned from time to time on the ground that stay is pending. At this stage, this court is not going into that aspect, since this court is deciding the revision itself on merits.

16. As seen from the docket proceedings, defendant No.1 filed vakalat, however, he could not file a written statement by 22.08.20