THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4224 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the Order dated 04.11.2024 in I.A.No.308 of 2024 in O.S.No.160 of 2024, passed by the learned VII-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri B.Venkateshwarlu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.Akash Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1.

3. Petitioners are defendants No.2 and 4 and respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of the present revision petition are that respondent No.1 filed a suit vide O.S.No.160 of 2024, against the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 10, for partition, recovery of arrears and for cancellation of Gift Deed. Though, summons were served on defendants No.2 and 4/petitioners, they did not appear on 04.07.2024, therefore, the trial Court set petitioners ex-parte on 04.07.2024; that petitioners have filed an application vide I.A.No.308 of 2024, on

02.08.2024, to set aside the ex-parte Order dated 04.07.2024.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application to set aside the ex-parte Order, it is averred that petitioners came to know from defendant No.3, who is sister of petitioner No.1, that they were set ex-parte on 04.07.2024, and their appearance on the said date was neither intentional nor wanton and thus, prayed to set aside the ex-parte Order. However, the trial Court vide impugned Order dated 04.11.2024, dismissed the application with observation that no proper reasons were assigned by the petitioners for their absence and also for non-

filing written statement along with the application.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners were set ex-parte 04.07.2024 and within a period of one month i.e., on 02.08.2024, petitioners filed the application to set aside the ex-parte Order, in fact, there is no delay and latches on their part. He further submitted that petitioners are ready to file written statement within a period of 30 days and thus, prayed to allow the revision petition.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that no proper reasons were assigned by the petitioners for their non-appearance, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. He further submitted that petitioners have not filed written statement along with the application to show their bona fide, therefore, no grounds are made out to interfere with the Order passed by the trial Court.

8. Perusal of the record would disclose that though the petitioners received summons, they did not appear on 04.07.2024, on which date the matter was posted for their appearance, therefore, they were set ex-parte; that on 02.08.2024, petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex-parte Order. Though, the petitioners have not filed the written statement along with the application to show their bona fide, it is not in dispute that petitioners have filed application within a period of one month, from the date of ex-parte Order and therefore, it cannot be said that there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in filing the application. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have adopted liberal approach and entertained the application instead of rejecting the application at threshold.

9. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,500/- payable to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and the petitioners shall file written statement within a period of 30 days from the date of this Order.

10. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned Order dated 04.