Mental trauma and emotional distress arising from personal loss justify granting a party an opportunity to contest a suit, emphasizing the need for fairness in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Abhinandhan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/Judgment-Debtor and Sri Akul Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs/Decree Holders.

2. C.M.A.No.326 of 2023 is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri in I.A.No.158 of 2022 in O.S.No.287 of 2010, filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to aside the exparte Decree and judgment dated 29.12.2015 passed in the said suit by condoning the delay of 2023 days.

3. C.R.P.No.1873 of 2023 is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri in E.P.No.15 of 2016 filed for execution of the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.287 of 2010.

4. Since, the present Appeal and the Revision Petition arise out of the same suit between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The facts leading to filing of these cases are that the appellant herein is the defendant in the suit instituted by the respondents for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 04.12.2008. During pendency of the suit, the appellant herein filed her written statement on 22.06.2011. Later, the appellant was set exparte and remained exparte. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court passed an exparte decree and judgment dated 29.12.2015 directing the appellant herein to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration within a period of three months.

6. Aggrieved by the exparte decree and judgment, the appellant herein filed I.A.No.158 of 2021 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the exparte decree and judgment dated 29.12.2015 passed in O.S.No.287 of 2010 by condoning the delay of 2023 days in filing the petition.

7. The learned Trial Court, considering various contentions raised by the parties, by order dated 28.11.2022, held that the appellant/defendant did not appear before the Court and her contention that she was not aware about passing of the judgment and decree, cannot be believed. The learned Trial Court further held that the appellant/defendant is intentionally avoiding to continue the proceedings and even there is no single document or paper filed to show that the appellant was suffering with emotional and mental illness during the period stated by her. The learned Trial Court therefore held that the appellant is not entitled for the relief of condonation of delay of 2023 days in setting aside the exparte decree as there was intentional delay on the part of the appellant.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed C.M.A.No.326 of 2023.

9. With respect to C.R.P.No.1873 of 2023, the same is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2023 passed in E.P.No.15 of 2016 in O.S.No.287 of 2010 directing the respondents/Decree Holders to file the Draft copy of Sale Deed for valuation purpose before sub-registrar.

10. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence and material placed on record, held that according to the counter of the appellant/judgment debtor, she failed to appear before the Court and let in any evidence to show that she did not enter into agreement of sale with the respondents/decree-holders in the suit, and after thorough enquiry, decree was passed