THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.2637 of 2025

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 22.07.2025 in I.A.No.429 of 2025 & I.A.No.447 of 2025 in O.S.No.5 of 2016 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at Hayathnagar (for short, ‘the impugned common order’)

2. Heard Mr.Gundram Manoj Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. G. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court dismissed the above I.A.s with costs.

4. The petitioner herein is defendant No.3, respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff, and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.1 and 2, in the above suit.

5. Initially, the suit was filed by plaintiff under Order VII Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and also to declare the registered documents produced by the defendants as null and void in respect of the suit schedule property.

6. Pending suit, petitioner / defendant No.3 herein has filed I.A.No.429 of 2025 in O.S.No.5 of 2016 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to re-open the case for filing of written statement and to set aside the petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and also I.A.No.447 of 2025 in O.S.No.5 of 2016 under Order IX Rule VII read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure, Code, 1908 praying the Trial court to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.11.2022 passed against petitioner / defendant No.3 in O.S.No.5 of 2016 and to give him an opportunity to contest the suit.

7. After issuance of notice and proper service of notice, the petitioner / defendant No.3 herein did not think it proper to represent the case before the Trial Court. Hence, the Trial Court was left with no other option but to proceed ex parte on 25.11.2022 against petitioner / defendant No.3 on account of non-appearance of the petitioner / defendant No.3. It is thereafter that the instant two applications were filed by petitioner / defendant No.3 on 03.07.2025. However, vide the impugned common order the Trial Court has rejected the said two I.A.s leading to filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner / defendant No.3 contended that no prejudice as such would be caused to respondent No.1 / plaintiff if the Trial Court were to have allowed the above two I.A.s and permitted petitioner / defendant No.3 to contest the case on its merits. He further contended that petitioner / defendant No.3 was not duly served notice and it was only recently when he visited the suit schedule property that he came to know about the pendency of the suit at the behest of respondent No.1 / plaintiff from the neighbours to the suit schedule property; and it was thereafter that the above two applications were filed, and therefore the Trial court ought to have allowed the two applications considering the fact that non-appearance of petitioner / defendant No.3 before the Trial Court was neither mala fide nor deliberate but for the bona fide reason that notice not have been served upon him. He further contended that if the two applications are not allowed and if petitioner / defendant No.3 is not permitted to contest the case on merits much prejudice would be caused to the interest of petitioner / defendant No.3, and therefore prayed that in the larger interest of justice petitioner / defendant No.3 ought to have been granted the opportunity to file a Written Statement and permitted him to contest the case on merits.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / plaintiff, opposing the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner /defendant No.3, contended that petitioner /defendant No.3 was duly served notice and that the averments made in the instant revision are