ORDER :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

Heard Mr.A.Ushi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the material available under law.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners assailing the order dated 04.02.2025 passed in E.P.No.165 of 2023 in O.S.No.171 of 2014 by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. It would be relevant at this juncture to reflect the brief facts of the case which lead to the filing of the instant writ petition.

4. The petitioners herein were the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.171 of 2014 which was filed by the plaintiffs seeking for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.4,93,000/- with interest. The plaintiffs claim themselves to be the absolute owners of shop No.107, Municipal No.16-10-1/5/107 in Survey No.127/1, situated at Mahboob Mansion Malakpet, Hyderbad.

5. The plaintiffs earlier filed a civil suit i.e., O.S.No.2387 of 2004 before the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad seeking for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule premises. The subject matter of that suit was compromised and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise, dated 16.10.2006. The defendants in the compromise decree accepted their tenancy from the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.8,500/-, exclusive of electricity charges and property tax. In terms of the compromise decree dated 16.10.2006, the defendants were required to vacate the premises on or before 31.07.2008. The defendants seem to have not vacated the suit premises, hence a notice was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants for vacating the suit premises as also to pay the arrears of rent. Upon failure on the part of the defendants in vacating the premises, plaintiffs filed E.P.No.107 of 2008 in O.S.No.2387 of 2004. Immediately thereafter, the defendants herein filed another suit i.e., O.S.No.2899 of 2008 before the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad seeking for declaration and injunction. An exparte interim injunction was obtained in I.A.No.76 of 2008 in the said suit, which was subsequently rejected/dismissed by the trial court on 13.04.2009. The defendants thereafter preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.89 of 2009. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal also stood dismissed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Subsequently, the defendants agreed to vacate the suit premises by 31.07.2008.

6. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed yet another suit i.e., O.S.No.171 of 2004 seeking for arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.4,93,000/- with interest against the defendants. All the defendants were served with the notices, they engaged a counsel by executing a vakalat in their favor and thereafter, the suit was proceeded. The defendants inspite of engaging a counsel and also filing their respective written statements did not contest thereafter, as it is evident from paragraph No.12 of the judgment passed in O.S.No.171 of 2014 on 21.12.2022, paragraph No.12 is reproduced herein under:

P.12. On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 was examined in chief PW-1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were got marked. Even though sufficient time was given and even though conditional orders passed, the Defendants failed to proceed with the cross examination of PW-01, hence this court was constrained to close the cross examination of PW- 01. Defendants failed to proceed with Trial, to prove their case, even though sufficient time was given. Hence this court was constrained and Defendants side evidence was closed.

7. Meanwhile, the development that has been occurred is the death of the 4^th defendant which was duly communicated by way of an interlocutory application before the trial court. Since there was no substitution made, the suit continued to be decided against the other three defendants i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 3, the petitioners in the present writ petition.

8. As such a decree was passed allowing the suit