THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1628 and 1664 of 2019

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.1628 of 2019 is filed by the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order, dated 09.04.2019 passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.1527 of 2018 in I.A.No 549 of 2015 in O.S.No.331 of 2015, wherein and whereby an application filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order, dated 26.02.2018 and also to permit the revision petitioner to file counter in I.A.No.549 of 2015 was dismissed.

2. C.R.P.No.1664 of 2019 is filed by the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order, dated 09.04.2019 passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.1528 of 2018 in O.S.No.331 of 2015 wherein and whereby an application filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order, dated

04.12.2017 passed against him in the suit was dismissed.

3. Since the issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner herein is defendant No.2 and respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.1 in the suit. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the above suit seeking to cancel the judgment and decree in O.S.No.98 of 2017 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad on the ground that the same was fraudulently obtained by defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of forged and fabricated agreement of sale, dated 30.03.2006 and five fabricated and forged receipts, dated 30.03.2006, 17.05.2006, 22.06.2006, 08.08.2006 and 10.09.2006 and consequently, prayed to cancel the registered sale deed bearing document No.2038 of 2009, dated 21.11.2009 which was executed by the Court in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in E.P.No.23 of 2009.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner was served with the notice in the said suit and he engaged a counsel, who filed Vakalat on 05.10.2015 and though the written statement ought to have been filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the summons, no written statement was filed till 04.12.2017 i.e. for a period of two years. Inspite of granting sufficient time, the revision petitioner did not chose to file the written statement and the learned trial Judge made him ex parte in the suit on 04.12.2017 and in I.A.No.549 of 2015 on 26.02.2018. Hence, seeking to set aside the said ex parte orders, applications under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. were filed by the revision petitioner within six months from the date of ex parte orders. It is further admitted that summons were served on the revision petitioner and he had engaged his counsel to defend his case. The main contention of the revision petitioner for not appearing before the trial Court was that his counsel was unwell for a period of two years and he could not get any information from his counsel though his counsel is said to have instructed that he would be informed about the status of the case and seeks his presence as and when required. Believing his words, the revision petitioner did not choose to pursue or follow up the matter and later on in the month of April, 2018 when he had approached his counsel, he came to know that he was set ex parte in the suit as well as in the injunction petition, counsel had returned his brief and as such, the petitioner engaged a new counsel and filed petitions seeking to set aside the ex parte orders.

6. The facts are similar in both the revision petitions and I.A.s and ex parte orders were sought to be set aside on the similar grounds.

7. As seen from the impugned orders, initially there was no objection reported by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff for allowing the said a