IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1126 OF 2025 Between Baltha Lingaiah .. Petitioners Vs.

Boda Ramachandra Reddy .. Respondent No.1 DATE OF COMMON ORDER PASSED: 09.06.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3 Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _____________________ JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD CORAM:

* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1126 OF 2025 % Delivered on: 09.06.2025 Between # Baltha Lingaiah .. Petitioners Vs.

$ Boda Ramachandra Reddy .. Respondent No.1 ! For Petitioners : Mr. P. Venugopal, ld.Sr.Counsel rep.Mr. P. Sathwik Reddy, ld.

counsel.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, Ld. Counsel rep. Mr.Aditya Mandhani, ld. counsel appearing for respondent No.1 Gist : > Head Note : ? Cases Referred :

1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1662 2 1987 SCC OnLine Ker 1999

3 2004 SCC OnLine SC 1409 = (2005) 1 SCC 436

4 MANU/TL/0531/2023

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1126 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P. Sathwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned counsel representing Mr.Aditya Mandhani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. With the consent of both the learned counsel, this CRP is disposed of at the admission stage.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in I.A. No. 433 of 2023 in O.S. No. 21 of 2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge – cum – Assistant Sessions Judge, at Peddapalli. Vide aforesaid order, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 186 days in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 27.12.2022.

Facts of the Case:-

3. 1^st respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of

2018 against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 6 herein for partition, recovery of possession and also to declare registered documents as null and void. The said suit was decreed on 27.12.2022. It is an exparte decree. Therefore, the petitioners herein/defendants 6 to 9 filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 186 days from 28.01.2023 to 31.07.2023 in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.21 of 2018.

4. 1^st respondent/plaintiff had filed counter opposing the said application contending that it is the duty of the party to be vigilant in knowing the proceedings of the Court and contesting the matter. But the petitioners herein kept silent all these years under the guise of ill-health which clearly shows gross negligence on their part. Though there is service of notice on the 2^nd petitioner herein/Defendant No.7 through1^st petitioner herein/defendant No.6 and having knowledge of the proceedings, he did not approach the Court. Though the petitioners 3 and 4 herein/Defendant Nos.8 and 9 are having knowledge about service of summons through publication in Nava Telangana Daily Newspaper, Peddapally District Edition, they did not appear before the Court. The petitioner No.4 herein/9^th defendant is residing in Hyderabad more than ten years and having knowledge of the publication of summons in the aforesaid daily newspaper.The summons sent to the defendant No.7 to 9 on the addresses mentioned in the gift deed, which was executed by the defendant No.6 in favour of the defendant No.7 to 9. Since all the petitioners herein did not appear before the Court, the trial Court vide order dated 27.12.2022 pas