APHC010450332024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3206]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2418/2024 Between:

Nuthalapati Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND Namburu Sudha Rani and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. NUTHALAPATI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following order:

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.23 of 2023, before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur, for partition of the suit schedule property against the four defendants. The 3^rd defendants had been set ex parte by an Order, dated 23.06.2023. Thereafter, the 3^rd defendant, who is the 1^st respondent herein, had moved an I.A.No.502 of 2023 under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for setting aside the ex parte Order, dated 23.06.2023. This application was contested by the petitioner herein on the ground that, the application for setting aside ex parte order is not bonafide and the applicant/3^rd respondent herein, has been misusing the lenience of the Court.

2. The petitioner contended that the applicant, after receiving notice of the suit, had filed a separate suit bearing O.S.No.806 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur, on 20.06.2023, when she was set ex parte by the order, dated 23.06.2023. In the circumstances, the contention of the applicant, that she was suffering from jaundice and was unable to instruct her counsel could not be accepted.

3. However, the Trial Court allowed the application, by an Order dated 13.09.2024, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1500/-.

4. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Sri Nuthalapati Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application should not have been allowed as the said application has been filed with false averments in as much as, the applicant therein could not have stated that she was unable to instruct her counsel on account of Jaundice when she had instructed her counsel to file another suit bearing O.S.No.806 of 2023, in the same period.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also object to the order on the ground that the applicant had obtained an ex parte order, in O.S.No.806 of 2023 and consequently, the applicant therein should not have been permitted to take up any defense, in O.S.No.23 of 2023. He would further contend that, mere levy of Rs.1,500/- as costs is not sufficient and that heavier costs should be imposed on the petitioner, on account of the fact that, she had mislead the Court in both the instances.

7. Without going into any of these allegations, this Court is of the opinion that it is in the higher interest of justice that disputes are decided on merit after adequate opportunity is given to the parties to dispute. In the present case, the suit was filed in the year-2023 and the 1^st respondent was set ex parte, on 23.06.2023 after which the 1^st respondent approached the Court within a reasonable period of time. No delay has been caused on account of the impugned proceedings.

8. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

BSM HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2418 of 2024

06-02-2024 BSM