THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1523 OF 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision

petitioner/petitioner No.2/respondent No.5 aggrieved by the order, dated 23.01.2019 in I.A.No.1790 of 2018 in LGOP No.1087 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy

at L.B. Nagar.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No.1 filed LGOP No.1087 of 2016 against the revision petitioner and other respondents. The revision petitioner was a resident of Singapore and was living there with her husband. During one of her visits to see her aunt in October, 2017, the revision petitioner came across a notice issued through Court in the LGOP fixing the date of hearing as 18.09.2017. The revision petitioner immediately found the status of the case and realized that they had been set ex parte. In the said circumstances, the revision petitioner along with her aunt (respondent No.12) filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 18.09.2017 along with the counter to the main LGOP petition, but the trial Court dismissed the said

petition. Aggrieved by which, this revision was preferred by the petitioner herein.

3. Heard Smt Manjari S Ganu, learned counsel representing Sri Sunil B Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.R. Mahajir, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner had demonstrated good and sufficient cause for their previous non-appearance and that the same was not intentional, but due to unavoidable circumstances, as the petitioner No.1 (respondent No.12) herein was a old aged woman of more than 80 years and was not in a physical state to look after the Court matters and the revision petitioner was a resident of Singapore and that they came to know about the pendency of the case only after they were set ex parte. The LGOP was at the stage of issuance of notice to the other respondents, as such, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent No.1, who was petitioner in LGOP, if the impugned order was set aside and relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora, Manu/SC/0886/2019, and of the High Court of Madras in Pilla Reddy and Others v. Thimmaraya Reddy and Others, MANU/TN/0968/1996 N.Ramanathan v. Meenakshi Sundaram, 2001 LawSuit(Mad) 587 and in Delhi Development Authority v. Shanti Devi and Others, Manu/DE/0347/1981

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that the respondent No.1 filed Land Grabbing Case (LGC) No.3 of 2008 which was re-numbered as LGOP No.1087 of 2016. The petitioner was set ex parte long ago in LGC No.3 of 2008 before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act. After the case was transferred to the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar and was re-numbered as LGOP No.1087 of 2016, notices were again issued and once again, the petitioner was set ex parte on 18.09.2017. She filed the present petition only to drag the case and to delay the matter. No document was filed by her to show that she was a resident of Singapore. Though the affidavit in I.A.No.1790 of 2018 was prepared in the month of October, 2017, the same was filed only on 07.03.2018 before the Court nearly after five months without giving any reasons, as such, the Court observing the same correctly dismissed the said petition. Ample opportunities were given to the petitioner, but the petitioner deliberately choose to stay ex parte. The petitioner had failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for previous non-appearance. He further contended that the petitioner was diversed of her right in the property, as she sold away the property and was not interested in the outcome of the petition and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

6. Perused the record. As seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.1790 of 2018 along with the respondent No.12 (pet