APHC010301592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1407 OF 2025 Petition under Section 115 of CPC Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Decree and Judgment in CMA No. 10/2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ongole in confirming the order in I.A.No.286/22 in O.S.No. 141/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. Between: Smt Nalluri Padma, W/o. Seetharamaiah, aged 48 years. House Wife, R/o. Mangamuru(V), Santhanuthalapadu(M), Prakasam District. ...Petitioner/Appellant/Defendant AND Veerisetty Krishna, S/o. Hussanaiah, aged 62 years, Occ Business, R/o. Kamakshi Lake View Apartments, Near R R Tank, Ongole. ...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to O.S.No. 141/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RAJA REDDY KONETI The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010301592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1407 of 2025 Between; 1.SMT NALLURI PADMA, W/0. SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/0. MANGAMURU(V), SANTHANUTHALAPADU(M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.VEERISETTY KRISHNA, S/o. Hussanaiah, aged 62 years, Occ Business, R/o. Kamakshi Lake View Apartments, Near R R Tank, Ongole. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toAggrieved and dissatisfied with the Decree and Judgment in CM A No. 10/2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ongole in confirming the order in I.A.No.286/22 in O.S.No. 141/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole in disallowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC without considering the fact that it was made exparte in covid-19 period as illegal and arbitrary besides non consideration of the same contrary to law, the petitioner begs to present the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondent: 1.RAJA REDDY KONETI The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: i Order dated 06.05.2025 in C.M.A.No.10 of 2024 is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 Constitution of India. To avoid confusion, the parties herein will be referred as plaintiff and defendant. 2. Narration of the facts born out of the order; The revision petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the Plaintiff in suit O.S.No.141 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. The suit is filed for Specific Performance of Contract. The agreement was entered on 11.08.2016. As per the recitals of the plaint, the salp consideration is Rs.21,00,000/- (in words Twenty one lakhs) only out of the said sale consideration an amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- (in words Sixteen lakhs) only was paid to the defendant on the date of execution of the agreement of sale and the rest of the amount has to be paid on the date of registration of the sale deed. And the property has to be measured and fix the boundary stones within 60 days prior to the execution of regular sale deed. It is further averred that legal notice dated 09.07.2019 sent to the defendant was returned un served on 16.07.2019 with an endorsement that addressee continuously 7 days not in village. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is intentionally delaying the execution of the regular sale deed in order to defraud the plaintiff by trying to sell the property listed in the complaint to third parties for a higher price. The defendant is concealing the existence of a sale agreement made in favour of the plaintiff and has relocated his family to Mangamur village. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for specific performance, seeking a direction to the defendant to execute the sale 3. 4. deed upon receiving the remaining sale consideration, or alternatively. to repay the amount along with interest. 5. Though legal notice is not served however the defendant received court summons. The defendant entered appearance in the suit through advocate and the defendant was set ex-parte in the suit on 20.02.2020 due to the failure to file a written statement within the 90-day period or to submit an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC requesting an extension of time. Consequently, an ex-parte judgment and decree were delivered on 09.10.2020. Thereafter, the plaintiff, who had obtained an ex-parte decree, , issued a legal notice dated 28.10.2020 to the defendant prior to initiating 6. 4 execution proceedings. Subsequently, he filed E.P.No.34 of 2021 under Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, expressing his willingness to deposit the balance sale consideration and praying for the court to execute the sale deed. Accordingly, the plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration on 31.10.2020. At this juncture, the defendant filed I.A.No.286 of 2022 under Order 9 rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte Judgment and decree dated 09.10.2020 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, on the ground that one Dumpa Venkateswara Reddy was the individual responsible for securing her signature and left thumb impression on blank stamp papers and her title deed regarding the scheduled property. This occurred while she was under the mistaken belief that Dumpa Venkateswara Reddy had resolved the matter with the plaintiff. She acknowledged receiving a legal notice from the plaintiffs counsel on 28.10.2020, prompting her to consult her own attorney for the case's status. Defendant counsel informed her that the ex parte judgment was rendered solely due to her failure to file a written statement, a fact of which she was unaware. Consequently, defendant requested the court 7. 5 to set aside that the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.10.2020 by submitting I.A. 8. I.A. No.286 of 2022 was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree was dismissed on 29.08.2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge in Ongole. The Court noted that the defendant deliberately chose not to attend the proceedings and filed the present petition solely to hinder and delay the execution of the decree against the defendant, thereby causing detriment to the plaintiff/D.Hr. Assailing the order dated 29.08.2024 in I.A.No.286 of 2022 defendant preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. The learned Principal District Judge, inter alia, observed that even 9. assuming the defendant was unaware of the passing of the ex-parte decree, the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was not filed in a timely manner. Furthermore, while the execution proceedings were underway for the registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, the present application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed belatedly. The Principal District Judge, therefore, dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, concluding thaf there were no valid and tenable grounds to interfere with the 6 findings recorded in I.A.No.286 of 2022, which sought to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 09.10.2020 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. Is the order under challenge is sustainable or interference is 10. necessary? 11. On careful reading of the order in I.A.No.286 of 2022 filed under Order 9 rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte Judgment and decree dated 09.10.2020 on the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, it is noted that the petition was dismissed on the grounds that the defendant failed to submit the written statement within the stipulated time of 90 days. This dismissal disregarded the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Salem Advocate Bar Association case. 12. This Court places the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union Of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, that the period of 120 days for filing written statement could be extended taking as the provision is directory and not mandatory and in the interest of justice the period for filing of written statement can be extended. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced herein below for reference: 1 21. In construing this provision, from Order VIII Rule 10 which provides that where from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to present the same within the time fixed by the Court, the Court shall against him, or make such other Order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. On failure to file written statement under this provision, the Court has been given the discretion either to pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such other Order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. In the context of the provision, despite use of the word "shall", the Court has been given the discretion to support can also be had any party permitted or pronounce judgment pronounce or not to pronounce the judgment against the defendant even if the written statement is not filed and instead pass such Order it may think fit in relation to the suit. In construing the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10, the doctrine of harmonious construction is required to be applied. The effect would be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 33/2023 Page 8 of 16 ByiDAMINI YADAV Signing Date;06.09.2023 18:02:33 that under Rule 10 Order VIII, the Court in its discretion would have the power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of the period of 90 days provided in Order VIII Rule 1. There is no restriction in Order VIII Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The Court has wide power to "make such Order in relation to the suit as it thinks as fit". 8 And it fact all the proceedings that have taken place during the 13. Covid pandemic and it is the specific case of the defendant that one Dumpa Venkateswara Reddy who is the man behind who obtained her signature and LTI on blank stamp papers and the defendant has not executed the said suit document or Agreement of sale dated 11.08.2016. In order to resolve the contention and to give one opportunity this court sees it is a fit case to be allowed. 14. Indeed, all the actions that occurred during the Covid pandemic are relevant, particularly it’s the case of the defendant that one Dumpa Venkateswara Reddy who is the man behind who obtained her signature and LTI on blank stamp papers and the defendant has not executed the said suit document or Agreement of sale dated 11.08.2016. The defendant asserts that she did not execute the suit document or the Agreement of Sale dated 11.08.2016. To address this issue and provide an opportunity for resolution, the court believes this is a suitable case for consideration. The learned trial court has not rightly applied its judicial mind while dismissing the interlocutory application filed to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree thereby caused miscarriage of justice to the defendant. 9 15. The Appellate Court Judge has not even reviewed the findings of the trial judge, nor has assigned any for the dismissal of the application by the trial court judge and not considered the judgment of the Apex Court in Salem Bar Association case. Further delays are caused by ill- considered decisions by the appellate court judge. I am of the view that the petition was dismissed solely technical ground. The trial court should have set aside the ex parte judgment and decree and resolved the case on its merits, rather than dismissing it on procedural issues without deciding the dispute on merit. Refusing to set aside can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. If the I.A.No.286 of 2022, was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree delivered on 09.10.2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge in Ongole it the same is not set aside the defendant in the suit will suffer grave injustice and it causes irreparable loss and harm, hence the order dated in I.A. No. 286 of 2022 is liable to set aside and accordingly it is hereby set aside. In the circumstances of this case, since the respondent herein- plaintiff has been contesting the matter for a reasonable period, the revision petitioner (defendant) is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (in words 16. on 17. 18. 10 fifty thousand) only as costs. Twenty five thousand to the respondent (Plaintiff) and the other 25,000/- (in words Twenty five thousand) only to the District Legal Services Authority within five weeks from the date of order, failing which, it shall be deemed that the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed without further reference or order from this Court and it is clearly understood that no extension request will be considered for delaying the payment of costs. 19. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam 2. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. 3. One CC to Sri. Srinivasulu Kurra District. Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Raja Reddy Koneti Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Chp vna HIGH COURT DATED;25/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1407 OF 2025 ^ 01 AUG 2025 CO ALLOWING THE CRP