Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 49
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Marineni Jaya Rani - Appellant
Versus
Balla Vijaya Susheela - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.931 Of 2024
Decided On : 09-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K VENUMADHAV
A party must demonstrate sufficient cause for failing to appear in court; mere assertions of illness or adverse conditions without substantiation do not suffice to reverse a court's dismissal for default.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 9 Rule 9 - Dismissal for default - The plaintiff filed a suit to declare an agreement null and void and for injunction but failed to adduce evidence, leading to dismissal for default. The application for restoration was denied by the trial court, and the appellate court upheld this decision. (Paras 5-12)
(B) Discretionary Power - The trial and appellate courts have discretion in allowing restoration of suits, which should be exercised judiciously; here, the plaintiff's lack of diligence was noted. (Paragraphs 10-11)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for the declaration of an agreement as null and void; the suit was dismissed for default due to failure to present evidence despite a conditional order. The plaintiff sought restoration citing ill-health and adverse weather conditions but remained unable to substantiate her claims convincingly.
Findings of Court:
The courts found that the plaintiff failed to show sufficient grounds for her non-appearance and did not exercise due diligence in pursuing her case.
Issues: The central issues included whether sufficient cause was shown for failing to appear and the propriety of the dismissal order.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts found that there was no merit in the plaintiff's claims of a lack of opportunity; a significant lack of diligence and valid justification were decisive in upholding the dismissal.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. proper procedure for filing and dismissal of applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. observations on lack of sufficient cause. (Para 3) |
| 3. dismissal due to plaintiff's failure to appear and adduce evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. arguments over discretion and rights to lead evidence. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's examination of reasons for non-appearance. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. rejection of revision petition based on merit. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 11.01.2024, passed by the I Additional District Judge at Nalgonda in C.M.A. No.8 of 2021.
2. Heard Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasham Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.103 of 2011 to declare Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA bearing No.7418 of 2011, dated 06.06.2011 as null and void and also for perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property.
5. Defendants entered appearance filed written statement, issues were framed and the matter was coming up for trial, and was posted on 22.09.2017 conditionally for evidence of plaintiff. On 22.09.2017 plaintiff failed to adduce evidence and requested for adjournment. The trial Court dismissed the suit for default with an observation that though the suit was coming up for evidence of plaintiff since 10.04.2014, and despite conditional order that in the event plaintiff fails to adduce evidence, suit will be dismissed, the plaintiff did not get ready and thus dismissed suit.
6. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.1011 of 2017 for restoration of suit. In the affidavit filed in support of application, it is averred that petitioner could not appear before the Court as she was suffering from ill-health and also, there were heavy rains at Hyderabad and thus prayed to restore the suit.
7. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed counter resisting the application and contended that there is no iota of truth in the contentions of the plaintiff that she was suffering with ill-health and there was heavy rain at Hyderabad on 22.09.2017 and that with an intention to drag on the matter, plaintiff wantonly allowed the suit to be dismissed and thus, prayed to dismiss the application.
8. The trial Court considering the contentions of both the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 23.12.2020 with an observation that no grounds are mentioned in the affidavit showing the bona fides to set aside the dismissal order dated 22.09.2017 and that the application is devoid of any merit.
9. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2020, plaintiff preferred appeal vide C.M.A. No.8 of 2021 and the first appellate Court vide impugned order dated 11.01.2024 dismissed the C.M.A with an observation that the trial Court already dismissed the application basing on the material on record and that plaintiff was not vigilant in pursuing the matter and that no sufficient cause has been shown for not adducing evidence on behalf of plaintiff from 22.01.2014 to 22.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was dismissed for default on 22.09.2017 and immediately within a period of 15 days application was filed for restoration of suit narrating the reasons for her absence on 22.09.2017 and that the application was pending for adjudication for a period of three years and was ultimately dismissed on 23.12.2020. He would further submit that the trial Court ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence since valuable rights in immovable property are involved. He further submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to exercise the discretionary powers vested on them and erroneously di
