HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.835 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Plaintiff. In the cause title itself, the petitioners stated that respondent Nos.2 to 32 are not necessary parties.

2. The present revision is filed challenging the order dated

12.11.2024 in I.A. No.1357 of 2024 in O.S. No.28 of 2012 passed by Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the petitioners under Order - IX, Rule - 7 read with

151 of CPC to set aside the order dated 11.10.2012 was dismissed.

3. Respondent No.1 filed a suit vide O.S. No.28 of 2012 against the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.2 to 32 for declaration of title and also for perpetual injunction. The petitioners herein are arrayed as defendantNos.14 and 16 and they were set ex parte on 11.10.2012 for non-filing of written statement. The suit is posted for defendants’ evidence. At that stage, the petitioners herein had filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.1357 of 2024 under Order - IX, Rule - VII read with 151 of CPC, to set aside the ex parte order dated

11.10.2012 on the following grounds:

i) They entered appearance by filing Vakalat through Mr. K.

Ramakrishna Chary, Advocate, who was introduced by co-defendant, Mr. Dasari Odaiah, who was pursuing the case on behalf of some of the defendants.

ii) Mr. Dasari Odaiah, defendant No.18 promised them to look after further proceedings on their behalf also. But, he reportedly expired and on coming to know about his demise, they approached their advocate and came to know that their advocate gave his Vakalat for them including deceased defendant No.18. Then, they approached the present advocate, who advised them to file the present application.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter opposing the application on the grounds that the affidavit is silent when the petitioners came to know the death of defendant No.18 and when they approached their advocate and the petitioners are planning to hold and stop the proceedings.

5. Vide order dated 12.11.2024, the trial Court dismissed the said application holding that it is not believable that the petitioners herein were unaware of the suit proceedings for a period of 12 years without knowing the fate of the case; there are no bona fides in filing the petition and that it did not see any valid reason to set aside the ex parte order.

6. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the present revision.

7. It is the specific contention of defendant No.14 that he has purchased Plot No.83, admeasuring 258 square yards in Survey No.33 of Bommakal Village under a registered sale deed bearing document No.5862 of 1993, dated 30.08.1993. Since then, defendant No.14 is in physical possession of the said property. The subject plot is part and parcel of suit schedule property in the said suit.

8. It is also specifically contended by defendant No.16 that she is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot Nos.85 and 86, admeasuring 341 and 307 square yards in Survey No.33 of Bommakal Village on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document Nos.1458 of 1992 and 3380 of 1993, dated 15.04.1992 and 25.06.1993, respectively and she is in physical possession of the same. Thus, both defendant Nos.14 and 16 have set up their claim. Therefore, an opportunity should be given to them to come on record and cross-examine PWs.1 and 2. Without considering the aid aspects, the trial Court dismissed the said application holding that it is not believable that defendant Nos.14 and 16 were aware of the suit proceedings for a period of 12 years, without knowing the fate of the case. The suit is not a simple suit for perpetual injunction and it is a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction where the plaintiff claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property.

9. As discussed above, the petitioners herein - defendant Nos.14 and 16 are claiming right over the