HTCDS, J CRP_6437_2016 1 APHC010674902016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6437/2016 Between: Pokapatla Narasimha Reddy, Chittoor Dist & 4 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Bank Of India Chittoor Dist ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY SRUNGAVARAPU HTCDS, J CRP_6437_2016 2 ORDER:- 1. The present revision petition is filed against order dt.15.11.2016 passed in IA No.54 of 2016 in OS No.261 of 2014, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The respondent bank filed suit in OS No.261 of 2014 for recovery of amount of Rs.8,98,098/- together with interest under agreement of Hypothecation Deed dt.21.05.2004 executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff bank for Rs.3 lakhs by offering the plaint schedule property as security agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum with half yearly rests and from the date of suit till the date of passing preliminary decree. In default, the mortgaged property be sold in public auction for realization of the suit amount by passing final decree. The petitioner Nos.4 & 5 stood as guarantors and executed deed of guarantee in favour of 2nd respondent bank. 3. Though the petitioners have received copies of plaint and the other documents did not choose to contest the suit and remained ex-parte and in those circumstances, the Trial Court HTCDS, J CRP_6437_2016 3 passed preliminary decree on 25.11.2014. On coming to know about passing of preliminary decree dt.25.11.2014, the petitioners/defendants filed an application vide IA No.54 of 2006 under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex-parte decree dt.25.11.2014 and to afford an opportunity to contest the matter. The said application was resisted by the respondent bank and by impugned order dt.15.11.2016, the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants on condition that the petitioners/defendants depositing 1/4th of the decreetal amount on or before 15.12.2016, failing which the petition stands dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the order, in so far as imposing condition of deposit of 1/4th decreetal amount, the present revision petition is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent bank issued legal notice dt.04.02.2014, wherein the petitioners are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,63,355/- together with interest as per contractual rate. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent bank also issued another notice dt.01.08.2015, during HTCDS, J CRP_6437_2016 4 pendency of the suit asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,63,380.50/- including the interest and expenses and to settle the case before National Lok Adalat, 2015. 7. Having received the notice, the petitioners could not discharge the amount due and in those circumstances, the respondent bank filed the above suit and obtained preliminary decree. Thereafter, the respondent bank filed an application seeking to pass final decree for an amount of Rs.9,44,882/- as outstanding. It is further contended by the petitioners that the respondent bank claimed entire debt without deducting the payments already made by the petitioners by suppressing the same and the statement of the account pertaining to the loan. 8. The said application was opposed by the respondent bank through its counter stating that the suit is filed based on equitable mortgage created by the petitioners, claiming the suit amount of Rs.8,98,098/-. Despite receiving the copies of the plaint and other suit documents, the petitioners remained ex-parte and thereafter the Trial Court passed preliminary decree on 25.11.2014. Therefore, the respondent bank filed application vide IA No.1067 of 2015 for passing final decree. The petitioners after HTCDS, J CRP_6437_2016 5 receipt of notice in filing decree, engaged counsel and sought time for filing counter in the final decree proceedings. The petitioners without assigning any reasons filed in the present application seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dt.25.11.2014 and prayed to dismiss the same. 9. Upon considering the case on hand, the Trial Court allowed the application by order dt.15.11.2016 on condition that the petitioners deposit an amount of 1/4th of the decreetal amount on or before 15.12.2016, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed. 10. This Court while ordering notice to the respondent by order dt.30.12.2016 suspended the impugned order in so far as imposing condition to deposit 1/4th of the decreetal amount. 11. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the respondent bank issued notice dt.04.02.2014 and subsequent filing of the suit issued another notice dt.01.08.2015, where under it is stated an amount of Rs.1,63,380.50/-, together with interest is due from the petitioners. Since the petitioner did not choose to contest the suit, the Trial Court passed preliminary decree dt.25.11.2014. Though the Trial Court allowed the application HTCDS, J CRP_6437_2016 6 filed by the petitioner by set aside the ex-parte decree dt.25.11.2014 imposed condition to deposit 1/4th decreetal amount on or before 15.12.2016. 12. Admittedly the suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.8,98,098/-/. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent did not deduct the amounts already paid by the petitioners and thereby claimed the entire loan amount together with interest over and above the actual amount due. Though, it is the discretion of the Trial Court to impose any condition, while allowing the application, the same has to be exercised judiciously. 13. In the instant case, imposing such onerous condition on the petitioners would certainly put the petitioners to hardship in as much as the petitioner contends that amount already paid by him was deducted. Having considered the facts on hand, so as to protect the interest of the respondent bank, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met by directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly, the order of Trial Court is modified. 14. With the above observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. HTCDS, J CRP_6437_2016 7 15. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 21.01.2025 DR HTCDS, J CRP_6437_2016 8 104 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.6437 of 2016 Date 21.01.2025 DR