HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3618 of 2024

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order, dated 12.11.2024, passed by the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in EP.No.982 of 2024 in OS.No.2696 of 1997, whereby the right of petitioner No.1 herein to file counter is forfeited.

2. Heard Sri Daraboina Subramanyam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Talaat Sajjad, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is owner of building bearing Municipal No.1-5-23(new), admeasuring 1081 square yards, situated at Musheerabad, Hyderabad; that petitioner No.1 has obtained a portion of the above property on lease in the year 1994 for running a primary school; that petitioner No.1 defaulted in payment of rents, therefore, the respondent filed a suit in OS.No.2696 of 1997 before the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits; and that the said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.07.2001 directing petitioner No.1 to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property to respondent within a period of two months from the date of judgment and also to pay arrears of rent and mesne profits till the date of recovery of possession. Challenging the same, petitioner No.1 preferred appeal-AS.No.331 of 2001 before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed SA.No.67 of 2023 before this Court and the same is pending. Initially, this Court granted stay of execution of judgment, however, the same was vacated on 07.06.2024, on contest.

3.1. Later, the respondent filed EP.No.982 of 2024 for execution of judgment and decree dated 24.07.2001 passed in OS.No.2696 of 1997. Petitioner No.1 entered appearance and had taken time for filing counter and ultimately, the EP was posted on 12.11.2024 for counter and on that day, learned counsel for petitioner No.1 filed an application for adjournment, however, the said application was returned as a copy of the same was not served on the respondent/D.Hr and the right of petitioner No.1/J.Dr. to file counter was forfeited. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision is filed.

3.2. During the pendency of this Revision, petitioner No.1 died and his legal heirs were brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 7.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 is a senior citizen and was suffering with various health issues and therefore, he sought time before the Executing Court to file counter in EP. On 12.11.2024, learned counsel for petitioner No.1 filed an application for adjournment along with photographs of petitioner No.1 to show that he was under medication. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent/D.Hr avoided notice and the same was brought to the notice of the Executing Court, however, the Executing Court erroneously returned the said application and forfeited the right of petitioner No.1 to file counter. He further submitted that the petitioner has been running a school in the schedule property since 30 years and more than 750 students are pursuing their studies and if the decree passed in OS.No.2696 of 1997 is executed in the middle of academic year, the students would be put to hardship and may also lose one academic year and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Executing Court ought to have given time to petitioner No.1 to file counter and contest the EP and thus, prayed to allow this Revision.

5. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the respondent is a charitable and educational institution being run on non-profit basis and it has established a large number of schools; that petitioner No.1 has taken the suit schedule property belonging to the respondent on lease and had been running a school, but, he defaulted in payme