THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3393 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri N.K. Prakash, learned counsel for the revision petitoner and Sri M. Venkat Divakar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18.06.2024 in I.A.No.223 of 2024 in O.S.No.513 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein the petition filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order dated 13.03.2018, has been dismissed.

3. It is the case of the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed suit for cancellation of sale deed in O.S.No.513 of 2015 and after receiving summons his counsel filed vakalath and the suit was coming for filing of written statement. Due to non-filing of the written statement, the revision petitioner was set ex parte on 17.08.2016. Immediately, a petition was filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. vide I.A.No.887 of 2016 in the said suit with a prayer to grant permission to file written statement by setting aside the order dated 17.08.2016. The said application was allowed by order dated

10.08.2017 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. The revision petitioner paid the costs, but written statement was not filed from the date of said order i.e., 10.08.2017 till 13.03.2018. On 13.03.2018, the right of the revision petitioner to file written statement was forfeited and he was again set ex parte and the suit was posted to 15.11.2018. The revision petitioner pleaded before the trial Court that he does not know about the suit proceedings till 12.08.2023 and made his appearance through his present counsel. Accordingly, the application was under revision i.e., I.A.No.223 of 2024 was filed under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. to set aside the order dated 13.03.2016.

4. Respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff opposed the said application before the trial Court referring to service of summons on the revision petitioner, his appearance through counsel, failure to file written statement leading to passing of order setting him ex parte and also subsequent filing of petition in I.A.No.887 of 2016, allowing of the said application vide order dated 10.08.2017. Respondent No.1 herein contended before the trial Court that in spite of giving an opportunity, the revision petitioner though paid costs, did not file written statement. Thereafter, after a lapse of eight years, the I.A. under revision was filed to set aside the order dated 13.03.2018. It is alleged that revision petitioner is abusing the Court process and therefore, opposed I.A.No.223 of 2024.

5. The trial Court after hearing arguments of both the learned counsel and having perused the docket proceedings dismissed the I.A.No.223 of

2024 leading to filing of the present revision petition.

6. In the grounds of revision, it is alleged that the trial Court failed to consider that due to the death of his previous counsel there was no information about the case status and therefore, the revision petitioner could not file written statement. Further, along with petition to set aside the order dated 13.03.2018, written statement was also filed, but the same is not considered by the trial Court. The merits of the case of the revision petitioner stated in the grounds of the present revision petition are not necessary for disposal of the present C.R.P. and therefore, not reiterated. The allegation of fraud is made against respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff. On these grounds, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 and allow the I.A.No.223 of 2024 by setting aside the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the trial Court.

7. During arguments in the present revision, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the I.A. under revision is filed to set aside the order setting the revision petitioner ex parte and permit him to file written