IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITOIN NO.3099 of 2024

12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between:

Gopagani Srinivas Goud …Petitioner/petitioner/defendant No.18 and S. Bhaskar (died) and 26 others …Respondents/respondents/plaintiffs/defendants

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. P. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.18 and Mr. Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5/plaintiff Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and respondent No.22/defendant No.15. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ defendant No.18 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.403 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2005, dated 08.07.2024, wherein, a petition filed under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte order and to receive the written statement of the petitioner/defendant No.18 filed on 10.04.2024, has been dismissed.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 7/plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 have filed suit for Specific performance of contract of sale dated 30.04.1992 against the defendants including the petitioner and respondent Nos.8 to 27 and to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property consisting of Ac.12.16 Gts. of land near Fort Warangal (East) Shivaru in Sy.No.615/A. In said suit, from time to time, on account of pendente lite transfer of the property, several defendants have been added by filing implead petitions under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. As many as 21 defendants have been arrayed as parties to the suit. Initially, there were about 13 defendants and at the latest, there are 21 defendants on record. Each time, the defendants are impleaded, they are filing written statement and the matter is going back to the initial stage of filing written statement and framing additional issues followed by leading evidence of the defendants and recalling the witnesses of PW1. In this instant case, the suit is of the year 2005. The matter was once posted for judgment and reopened again on account of filing of interlocutory applications and certain defendants coming on record. In the same context, when the matter was posted for arguments in the year 2024, the present I.A is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.18.

4. The case of the petitioner herein is that he has no knowledge about the main suit till he received notice in C.R.P. No.375 of 2024 on 23.02.2024. Only then, the petitioner learned about the suit from the notice received from this Court and enquired the same through his counsel when he went to Warangal on 31.03.2024. After making enquiry, after learning about the pendency of the suit, the Interlocutory application under revision along with written statement were filed. This Interlocutory application was opposed by the respondents/ plaintiffs alleging that the petitioner herein received notice and summons in the Interlocutor application as well as the suit and that he was represented by a counsel N.V.R.R. But on account of failure to file counter, the petitioner was set ex-parte in the I.A and the I.A was disposed of. It is pleaded that there are no merits in the petition filed and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Upon considering the pleadings of both the parties and hearing both the counsels, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

6. In grounds of Revision, it is pleaded that the impugned I.A under revision i.e. I.A.No.403 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2005 is erroneously dismissed though petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 7 for impleading the petitioner as defendant No.18 was allowed and consequent amendment was permitted. It is pleaded that as per Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, a written statement has to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons to him, presenting his defence. As per proviso, a maximum period of 120 days can be permitted from the date of service of summons for filing written statement.