HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1855 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mrs. R. Madhavi Latha, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Avani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the cause title, it is mentioned as respondent Nos.3 to 5 are

not necessary parties.

2. This revision is filed under Article - 227 of the Constitution

of India challenging the order dated 03.01.2025 in I.A. No.349 of 2024 in O.S. No.176 of 2020 passed by learned Junior Civil Judge at

Peddapalli.

3. Vide the aforesaid order, learned trial Court allowed the

aforesaid I.A. No.349 of 2024 setting aside the order 25.11.2021 passed by the trial Court forfeiting the right of defendant Nos.1 and 2

in filing written statement on payment of costs of Rs.1000/-.

4. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, while respondents

herein are defendants in the aforesaid suit O.S. No.176 of 2020. The petitioner filed the said suit against the respondents for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, right of defendant Nos.1 and 2 to file

written statement was forfeited on 25.11.2021. Therefore, they filed a petition vide I.A. No.349 of 2024 in O.S. No.176 of 2020 on 21.12.2023 to set aside the said order dated 25.11.2021 on the following grounds:

i) They are not well versed with the legal procedure.

ii) They were under the impression that they need not file separate written statement in O.S. No.176 of 2020. Therefore, they have not field written statement within time.

iii) On legal advice, they came to know that they have to file written statement in the subject suit also.

5. The aforesaid application was opposed by the petitioner -

plaintiff stating that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not filed an application under Section - 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing application under Order - IX, Rule - 13 of CPC. The reasons mentioned by them in the affidavit are not satisfactory.

6. Vide order dated 03.01.2025, learned trial Court allowed the said application holding that right to file written statement by defendant Nos.1 and 2 was forfeited on 25.11.2021. The suit is coming up for plaintiff’s evidence. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and to give an opportunity to defendant Nos.1 and 2, the said application was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff filed the present revision.

7. As rightly contended by the petitioner herein that right of defendant Nos.1 and 2 to file written statement was forfeited on 25.11.2021. Admittedly, they have filed the aforesaid application vide I.A. No.349 of 2024 in O.S. No.176 of 2020 in December, 2023 i.e., after two years and it was numbered as I.A. No.349 of 2024.

8. It is the specific contention of the petitioner - plaintiff that, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the said I.A. No.349 of 2024 under Section - 151 of CPC after two (02) years without filing an application to condone the delay. In the light of the said submission, it is apt to note that there is no provision in the CPC to forfeit the right of defendants in filing written statement. Even then, trial Courts are passing orders forfeiting the right of defendants to file written statement and, thus, giving scope to the defendants in filing application under Section - 151 of CPC to set aside the said order forfeiting the right to file written statement leisurely. In the present case, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed application under Section - 151 of CPC after two (02) years.

9. It is also apt to note that there is no limitation to file an application under Section - 151 of CPC to set aside the order forfeiting right of defendants in filing written statement. Therefore, defendants are taking advantage of the same and filing applications with abnormal delay. Thus, the defendants are trying to delay the disposal of the suits.

10. It is also apt to note that the time lines mentioned in the Order - VIII, Rule - 1 CPC in non-commercial suits are directory not mandatory as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Co