ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 under article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the docket order passed in I.A.No.62 of 2012 in O.S.No.97 of 2009 dated 08.02.2012 on the VII Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Kakinada, East Godavari District, whereby the application filed under Rule 125 of Civil Rules of Practice, seeking extension of time for filing written statement, is dismissed.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the first respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.97 of 2009 against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 8, seeking to set aside the sale deeds executed on 25.04.2005 for 4/7th share in suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. On 23.08.2011 the petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 set exparte, for which they filed petition in I.A.No.600 of 2011 under Order IX Rule 7, which was allowed on 27.01.2012 with costs of Rs.200/- and to file written statement by 08.02.2012, posted the matter on 08.02.2012. On that day costs paid and written statement could not be filed on the ground that the suit documents are not served on the petitioners, for which they were also filed memo under rule 125 of Civil Rules of Practice, for issuance of suit documents, to direct the first respondent/plaintiff to serve the copies of the suit. The trial Court failed to take notice of the same, and dismissed their petition in I.A.No.62 of 2012 on 08.02.2012.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that under Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC, there is 30 days time to file written statement by the defendants, from the date of receipt of summons as per the proforma Appendix B-1 and also Court has entitled to extend 60 days time under the provisio provided. The Trial Court failed to see that in spite of filing memo by the petitioners, to direct the first respondent/plaintiff to serve the suit documents so far they have not served with, no papers were given to them and as they have not received any suit summons, because of which they were set exparte. Trial Court ought to have been directed the respondents to serve suit documents to enable the petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 to file written statement as they have also filed memo under Rule 125 of Civil Rules of Practice and the same is pending. The trial Court erroneously held that petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 are only seeking time to drag on the matter, which is of 2009.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel and on perusal of record, this Court allowed the I.A. 62 of 2012 in O.S.No.97 of 2009, setting aside the order dated

08.02.2012 directing the first respondent/plaintiff to serve the entire suit documents on the petitioners/defendants 2 to 4, on or before within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, on receipt of suit documents, the petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 have to file written statement within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of suit documents.

5. Accordingly this C.R.P. is allowed and the impugned order passed in I.A.No.62 of 2012 in O.S.No.97 of 2009 dated

08.02.2012, is set aside. No costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________ M.GANGA RAO, J Date: 29.10.2019 PNR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2232 of 2012 Date: 29.10.2019 PNR