THADDI SHAIK KHASIM BI vs MIDDE ABSANA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1586 of 2022 Between:
1. Thaddi Shaik Khasim Bi, W/o late Khasim, Aged about 51 years, C/o Thaddi Mhaboob Vali, Yerraballi Village and Post, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District and another … Petitioners/Defendants 1 & 2 And
1. Midde Absana, W/o.Akbhar, Aged about 25 years, Occ: House wife and cultivation, R/o D.No.16/86-7, Kotagadda Street, Chagalmarri Town & Mandal, Kurnool District and another … Respondents/Plaintiff & D-3 Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N.Ashwani Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri G.Ramesh Babu

ORDER:

Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 13.07.2022 in I.A.No.971 of 2019 in O.S.No.150 of 2012 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur.

2. 1st respondent/plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.150 of 2012 against the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent herein for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction.

3. Respondents filed written statement and have been contesting the suit and the same is coming for trial. Since there is no representation on behalf of the plaintiff, the suit is dismissed for default on 26.06.2018.

4. 1st respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No. 970 to condone delay and I.A.No.971 of 2019 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to set aside the dismissal order dated 26.06.2018.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that the husband of the plaintiff was taking care of the suit affairs; that her husband went to Kuwait and the plaintiff was suffering from viral fever and jaundice; that she could not contact the Advocate; that since there is no representation, the suit was dismissed for default; that non appearance on that day i.e. on 26.06.2018 is neither willful nor wanton and hence, prayed the Court to set aside the default order.

6. Revision petitioner/1st defendant filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter it was contended inter alia that no reasons were assigned to condone the delay. The explanation offered by the petitioner reveals that neither she nor her husband have not shown due diligence at any stage of the proceedings of the case. No sufficient cause is mentioned to condone the delay in filing petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC and eventually prays the Court to dismiss the revision.

7. 3rd respondent also filed separate counter and opposed the application.

8. By order dated 13.07.2022, trial Court allowed I.A.No.971 of 2022 by setting aside the dismissal order dated 26.06.2018 on condition that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision is filed.

9. This Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition No.1585 of 2022 filed against the order condoning the delay in filing petition to set aside the default order. The reasons assigned to condone the delay and the reasons assigned to set aside the default order are one the same.

Since the Civil Revision Petition No.1585 of 2022 is dismissed, this Revision also fails.

10. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 08.11.2022

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1586 of 2022 Date : 08.11.2022

Click Here to Read the rest of this document