IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1135 of 2025

17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 Between:

Ratnavath Dharmender …Petitioner/respondent No.1/plaintiff and Ratnavath Gopal and 4 others …Respondents/petitioner/defendant Nos.1 to5

ORDER:

Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1/plaintiff and Sri K. Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4/petitioner, respondent Nos.3, 4/defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. Perused the record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Khammam (for short ‘the Trial Court’), in I.A.No.10 of 2025 in O.S.No.86 of 2018 dated 12.03.2025, wherein, said I.A filed by respondent No.1 herein under Order IX Rule 7 r/w 151 of CPC seeking to set aside the forfeiture order dated 17.04.2019 and to take his written statement on record, was allowed.

3. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.10 of 2025 stating that the petitioner herein filed suit for partition and separate possession and said matter stood posted for arguments. At that time, it was noticed that the written statement which was served on the opposite counsels, but, for not filing before the Court, the right to file written statement was forfeited. Thereafter, respondent No.1 was examined as DW1 and he was also cross examined. In addition, the documents on behalf of respondent No.1 were marked in ‘B’ series. While preparing for arguments, it was noticed that the written statement is not filed and his right is forfeited and therefore, petition is filed to receive the written statement.

4. The petitioner herein opposed the relief sought for by respondent No.1 alleging that written statement was not filed and therefore, a forfeiture order was passed against the respondent No.1 as well as the remaining defendants. Further, it is admitted that respondent No.1 was examined as DW1, cross examined and documents were marked. However, the petitioner denied non-filing of written statement being unintentional. Further, it is denied that respondent No.1 was under the impression that the written statement may have been filed. The lapses on the part of respondent No.1 cannot be allowed to be cured after a lapse of six years. As such, opposed the receiving of written statement.

5. The Trial Court observed that the suit is filed for cancellation of registered Partition Deed document No.4190 of 2015 dated 07.03.2015 and cancellation of registered Gift Deed document No.10485 of 2015 dated 13.09.2015 and for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. There is no doubt that the right to file written statement on behalf of defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 was forfeited. However, the evidence of respondent No.1 was recorded without any objection on behalf of the petitioner apart from marking of documents. Only at the time of arguments, it is noticed that his right to file written statement was forfeited by the court on 17.04.2019. Since both the parties have adduced their evidence, in order to cure the lapses, respondent No.1 was permitted to file written statement, as no prejudice would be caused. As such, petition was allowed with an order to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-.

6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the right to file written statement was forfeited on 17.04.2019 and thereafter, the entire evidence was recorded. At the stage of arguments, permitting filing of written statement is nothing but putting the cart before the horse. It is further pleaded that the provision under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC is not applicable as the same is applicable when a party is said ex-parte. The respondent No.1 was present throughout the proceedings and the matter stood posted for arguments. Reference is made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, AIR 2005 SC 626, wherein, it is held that application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC is n