IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 414 of 2025

01^ST DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

M/s. Panchamukhi Industries, Hyderabad.

…Appellant

AND

The General Manager, Telangana State Finance Corporation,

Hyderabad and another.

…Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Himangini Sanghi, learned counsel for the

appellant. Though notice served on the respondents, none

appeared on behalf of the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in I.A. No. 1552 of 2024 in O.S. No. 434 of 2015 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) wherein, the petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 read with 151 of the CPC

to restore the suit by setting aside the dismissal order dated

19.09.2024 has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the main suit in O.S. No. 434 of 2015 was filed by the appellant (plaintiff) against the respondents (defendants) seeking recovery of money of RS.46,48,257/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The said suit was dismissed at the stage of trial, when P.W.1 has filed evidence in chief and the matter stood posted for marking of documents. At that stage on 19.09.2024 at 12:15 p.m., the suit was dismissed for non appearance of the appellant and his counsel on record. On the same day, a petition was filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC to restore the suit. Notice was given to the respondents and they have endorsed no objection and no counter for setting aside the dismissal order and restoration of the suit. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the single ground of approaching the Court with unclean hands. The appellant herein in the affidavit filed seeking restoration of suit stated that when he reached the Court at 12:00 Noon, the suit was dismissed for default, whereas, the docket order dated 19.09.2024 shows that the suit was dismissed at 12:15 p.m., due to non-appearance of the appellant and his counsel on record. On account of variation of 15 minutes of time as per the affidavit filed by the appellant and the docket order dated 19.09.2024, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the petition, the present appeal is preferred.

4. In the grounds of the appeal, it is pleaded that the Trial Court failed to consider that the appellant was ill on the day when the matter was posted for marking of documents, that the suit was filed for recovery of money and in case, the suit is not restored, the purpose of filing the suit would be defeated and the respondents would enjoy unearned benefits taking advantage of the decree.

5. During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that approximate time was mentioned as “at about 12:00 Noon” and the same is taken literally by the Trial Court to arrive at a conclusion that the affidavit filed by the appellant contains falsehoods. It is emphasized that the appellant did reach the Court and by the time he reached the Court, the suit was dismissed. The restoration petition was filed on the same day. Further, notice was also given to the respondents on the same day and they have endorsed no objection. When the petition came up for hearing on 11.11.2024 also the respondents have reported no counter. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the appellant on 19.09.2024, which is the day of the dismissal of the suit, shows that the time “as around 12:00 Noon”. The said paragraph is extracted and produced below:

“I state that my counsel advised me to attend the Court as soon as possible and by the time I came to the Court hall it was around 12.00 Noon and I came to know that the case was dismissed for default.”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. That the word used “around 12:00 Noon” can be taken as a few minutes prior or few minutes after 1