HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1983 & 1985 of 2023

COMMON ORDER

Civil Revision Petition Nos.1983 and 1985 of 2023 are directed against the common order, dated 25.04.2023, passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.Nos.548 and 546 of 2023 in OS.No.87 of 2017, respectively. 2. By the impugned common order, IA.Nos.546 and 548 of 2023 filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 to reopen the suit, and to set aside the order dated 17.04.2019 and to receive the written statement were allowed by the trial Court.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is interconnected and the result is interdependent, both the Revision Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by common order.

4. The revision petitioners herein are plaintiffs and respondent Nos.1 to 6 are defendant Nos.4, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, respectively, in the suit before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

5. Heard Sri G.Arun, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

6. Concisely stated, the facts of the case relevant for adjudication for the present Revision Petitions are that the plaintiffs filed suit in OS.No.87 of 2017 for partition and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendants. The defendants entered appearance and engaged counsels, however, some of the defendants failed to file their written statements, hence, the right of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to file written statement was forfeited by the trial Court vide order dated 17.04.2019. Later, the trial of the suit was proceeded with and P.W-1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs; that P.W-1 was also cross-examined by learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2; that on completion of plaintiffs’ side evidence, when the matter was being posted for defendants’ side evidence, the trial Court taking note of the fact that the right of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 for filing written statement was forfeited, posted the suit to 30.01.2023 for evidence of defendant No.3; that on the said date, defendant No.3 reported no evidence and hence, the matter was posted to 07.02.2023 for arguments, on which date, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the aforesaid two applications, i.e., IA.Nos.546 and 548 of 2023.

7. The plaintiffs filed counters resisting both applications.

8. The trial Court, on hearing learned counsel for both the parties, vide impugned common order dated 25.04.2023 allowed the said applications on costs with observations that party cannot be penalized for the mistake or omission on the part of his/her counsel; that the time limit for filing written statement is not mandatory, but only directory; that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have shown sufficient reason and exceptional circumstances are made out for non-filing of the written statement in time. Questioning the said common order, the present Revisions are filed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that on 20.07.2022, P.W-1 was cross-examined on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and further, the suit went number of adjournments and finally, on 23.12.2022 the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and on the same day, the trial Court having observed that the right of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to file written statement was forfeited on 17.04.2019, posted the suit for evidence of defendant No.3, who filed written statement, however, on 30.01.2023, defendant No.3 reported no evidence and hence, the suit was posted to 07.02.2023 for arguments. At that stage, i.e., at the fag end of the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 came up with the present applications by blaming their earlier counsel for laches and default in filing written statement and therefore, the reasons put forth by defendant Nos.1 and 2 for non-filing of the written st