IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3886 of 2024

05^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 Between:

M/s. Vishweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and 6 others.

…Petitioners AND Smt. Allampati Rangamma and 2 others.

...Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Malla Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2024 in I.A.No.1796 of 2024 in O.S.No.329 of 2013 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at Kukattapally (‘trial Court’), wherein a petition filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC to set aside the ex parte order dated 15.02.2019 against the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 7, has been dismissed.

3. Respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title with respect to suit schedule property and to put her in peaceful possession of said property by evicting respondent No.3 herein/defendant No.9 or anybody claiming through him. Respondent No.1 is claiming the suit schedule property through respondent No.2 herein i.e., M/s. Manjira Co- operative Society. In said suit, summons were not served on the petitioners herein, but they were served through substituted service i.e., newspaper publication and were set ex parte on 15.02.2019 and the matter was posted for evidence of respondent No.1. At that juncture, petitioner No.1 filed a petition to set aside ex parte order vide I.A.No.129 of 2020, the said petition was dismissed on the technical ground that the affidavit was filed in the individual capacity, but not as director or authorized person of petitioner No.1, which is a body corporate and without its seal. Since the seal is not affixed below the signature of the deponent and no authorization is filed, the I.A. has been dismissed. There are other suits filed for the same relief by different plaintiffs, which are tried along with the suit. The defence taken by the petitioners in all the suits is one and the same. Further, due to corona and ill-health and other business problems, the Managing Director has filed a petition at belated stage and could not file immediately. As such, it is pleaded that non-appearance is neither willful nor wanton, but due to the circumstances stated in the affidavit and therefore, prayed that the ex parte order be set aside.

4. The petition was opposed by respondent No.1 by filing written counter stating that the petitioners were set ex parte in the suit for their non-appearance and it is also admitted that I.A.No.129 of 2020 was filed to set aside the ex parte order by petitioner No.1. The said I.A. was dismissed on merits by the order dated 24.02.2022. The said order was not challenged and it has become final. The subsequent I.A., which is under revision was filed with the same relief and therefore, claimed that said I.A. is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No.1 admitted that there are similar cases wherein the defence taken by the petitioners is similar. However, said ground is not sufficient for allowing the interlocutory applications. Also, the reasons stated for delay in filing the interlocutory application i.e., corona, ill-health and other business problems of the Managing Director are denied. It is pleaded that no reasons are stated for non-appearance of the petitioners for two years from the date of disposal of the earlier petition. The suit is of the year 2013 and that the petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC as such, pleaded that there are no grounds to allow the application.

5. The learned trial Court has dismissed the interlocutory application on the ground that the order passed in I.A.No.129 of 2020 has become final and that the subsequent I.A. i.e., I.A. under revision is filed two and a half years after disposal of I.A.No.129 of 2020 without giving valid reasons to con