THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1985 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Jella Srikanth, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 9 and 10, Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 and 11 and Ms. Sarampally Mrudula, learned counsel for respondent No.12. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.818 of 2023 in O.S.No.121 of 2014 dated 13.06.2024 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (‘trial Court’), wherein an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay of 78 days in filing application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. in O.S.No.121 of 2014 has been dismissed.

3. The background facts are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit for partition and separate possession with a prayer to pass preliminary decree allotting 1/9^th share to them and pass final decree with respect to the suit schedule property consisting of agricultural land in Sy.No.342 to an extent of Ac.1-36 guntas, Sy.No.343 to an extent of Ac.1-09 guntas, Sy.No.344 to an extent of Ac.0-25 guntas, Sy.No.345 to an extent of Ac.0- 16 guntas, Sy.No.349 to an extent of Ac.0-16 guntas, Sy.No.350 to an extent of Ac.0-17 guntas, Sy.No.374 to an extent of Ac.0-04 guntas and Sy.No.375 to an extent of Ac.0-05 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.5-08 guntas situated at Maheshwaram Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said suit has been dismissed for default on 29.08.2016. Prior to dismissal of the suit, the revision petitioner herein was set ex parte by docket order dated 30.07.2014 by serving summons by way of newspaper publication. After the suit was dismissed for default, the suit was restored vide orders in I.A.No.714 of 2016 by condoning delay of 993 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 4 of the C.P.C. Thereafter, the suit was decreed ex parte. Aggrieved by the said ex parte decree, the I.A. under revision was filed to condone delay of 78 days along with petition to set aside the ex parte order. The said I.A.No.818 of 2023 has been dismissed leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 9 and 10 filed their counter opposing the present revision pleading that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the I.A.

under revision and there are no grounds for interference.

5. Respondent No.12 filed his counter supporting the case of the revision petitioner and prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the present revision.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in G.P.Srivastava v.

R.K.Raizada, (2000) 3 SCC 54, wherein it is held as under:

“7. Under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. an ex parte decree passed against a defendant can be set aside upon satisfaction of the Court that either the summons were not duly served upon the defendant or he was prevented by any 'sufficient cause' from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. Unless 'sufficient cause' is shown for nonappearance of the defendant in the case on the date of hearing, the Court has no power to set aside an ex parte decree. The words "was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing" must be liberally construed to enable the Court to do complete justice between the parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to erring party. Sufficient cause for the purpose of Order 9 Rule 13 has to be construed as elastic expression for which no hard and fast guidelines can be prescribed. The Courts have wide discretion in deciding the sufficient cause keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance refers to the date on which the absence was made a ground for proceeding ex-parte and cannot be stretc