THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned Principal District Judge at Suryapet in I.A.No.586 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2018 dated 19.09.2024.

2. The case of the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 is that he is residing at Hyderabad, but his address is shown at Suryapet and summons were allegedly served at Suryapet. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that he has not received any summons in the suit and therefore he was not represented in the suit and his right to file written statement has been forfeited and that he has been set exparte.

3. The current revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned Principal District Judge at Suryapet in I.A.No.586 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2018 dated 19.09.2024 which was filed under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside the exparte order dated 16.04.2019 passed against him and to permit him to file the written statement. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that he has not engaged any counsel and he has not given any vakalat in that regard. After passing of the impugned order, the revision petitioner filed copy application to obtain certified copy of the vakalat of the counsel who represented the revision petitioner before the trial Court. But, the said copy application is not complied. The non-compliance of copy application, according to the revision petitioner shows that no counsel has represented him before the Trial Court. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that he came to know about the pending suit only when he received notice in C.R.P.Nos.1243 of 2024 and 1253 of 2024, i.e., when notices were served at his Hyderabad residence.

4. To the contrary, the case of the respondent is that summons were served, the revision petitioner was represented by a counsel before the Trial Court and only on account of the failure to file written statement, his right was forfeited. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently denied the non-

representation of the revision petitioner by a counsel before the Trial Court.

5. The learned Principal District Judge relied upon the docket proceedings which show that the revision petitioner was represented by a counsel and on 16.04.2019, due to non-filing of written statement, the right to file written statement has been forfeited. It is held that the docket order dated 16.04.2019 does not show that the revision petitioner was set exparte that his right to file written statement was forfeited.

6. The truth in the versions of the rival contentions can be ascertained only by verifying the record before the Trial Court. More particularly, there is a need to verify whether summons were served on the revision petitioner at Suryapet address and whether a counsel has represented the revision petitioner by filing vakalat.

7. Therefore, this matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to ascertain serving of summons on the revision petitioner and his representation by a counsel by name S. Someshwar and pass appropriate orders.

8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

_________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 16.09.2025 GGD