THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.781 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 24.10.2024 in I.A.No.629 of 2023 in O.S.No.141 of 2024 (Old O.S.No.94 of 2018) passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is plaintiff No.1, who filed a suit in O.S.No.141 of 2024 against the defendants-defendants seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.267/B, Pyki, situated at Yapadinne Village, Ieeja Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. It is stated that in the said suit the respondents-defendants were set ex- parte and subsequently an ex-parte decree was passed. It is stated that basing on the ex parte decree, the petitioner herein made an application to the Tahsildar, Ieeja Mandal, seeking implementation of the said decree in her favour. The application was considered by the Tahsildar and he effected name of the petitioner as a pattadar in the revenue records in respect of the subject property. Subsequently, the respondents herein filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal vide order, dated

04.08.2022 in I.A.No.426 of 2022 set aside the ex parte.

3. It is further stated that in view of setting aside the ex-parte decree, the respondents herein filed another application in I.A.No.629 of 2023 under section 151 of CPC seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Ieeja Mandal for restoration of entries made in the revenue records in respect of the suit land as they were made prior to the implementation of the ex-parte Þcree dated 15.12.2019. The said application was allowed by passing docket order dated 24.10.2024 and directing the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), Ieeja Mandal to restore entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit land and and a direction was given to rectify the entry and to revert back the entries which were mentioned earlier.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff No.1 contending that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ought not to have allowed the application filed by the respondents-defendants since the Tahsildar, Ieeja Mandal is not a party to the suit and he cannot pass such an order against the procedure contemplated under Rule 53 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Further, it is contended that no notice was served on the petitioner herein and that the counsel appearing the petitioner is also not recorded in the impugned order and the order is a non-speaking, unreasonable, and cryptic. It is further contended that that there is no difference between ex parte decree and the decree after full-fledged trial and that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the judgment decree dated 15.12.2019, was pronounced as per law and procedure and that it is fit case to rectify the entries and to revert back the entries which were mentioned earlier.

5. Heard Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Narsimhulu, learned counsel representing Ms. Mogli Anaveni, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Having, perused the entire material on record, it is evident that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking relief declaration of title and recovery of possession. It is a fact that in the said suit, the respondents- defendants were set ex-parte and the learned Judge has passed an ex-parte decree. Pursuant to the said decree, it appears that the petitioner herein and another have approached the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar) and got their names mutated in the revenue records basing on the ex- parte decree. The said ex-parte decree was subsequently set aside vide order dated 04.08.2022.

7. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the revisio