1 VS,J C.R.P.No.1226 of 2023 APHC010213542023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1226/2023 Between: 1. K.DEVARAJULU, S/O K.GOPALU, AGE. 55 YEARS, R/O. KARANAMVANDLAVOORU VILLAGE, H/O. NALLISETTIPALLI, CHERLAPALLI POST, THAVANAMPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT A ORANGI, W/O LATE D.AMARNATH BABU, AGE. 51 YEARS, R/O. KARANAMVANDLAVOORU VILLAGE, H/O. NALLISETTIPALLI, CHERLAPALLI POST, THAVANAMPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. D VIMAL, S/O LATE D.AMARNATH BABU, AGE. 38 YEARS, R/O. KARANAMVANDLAVOORU VILLAGE, H/O. NALLISETTIPALLI, CHERLAPALLI POST, THAVANAMPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. D VINOD, S/O LATE D.AMARNATH BABU, AGE. 35 YEARS, R/O. KARANAMVANDLAVOORU VILLAGE, H/O. NALLISETTIPALLI, CHERLAPALLI POST, THAVANAMPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toAggrieved by the Decree and Order of the Court of the 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.1226 of 2023 ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR, in I.A.No.285 of 2020, in I.A.No.443 of 2019, in I.A.No.131 of 2013, in O.S.No.104 of 2012, dated 30.01.2023, the petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings along with executive proceedings if any in O.S.No.104 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G JAGADEESWAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.1226 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor in I.A.No.285 of 2020 in I.A.No.443 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 whereby, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for condoning the delay of 303 days in filing the petition to set-aside the dismissal order dated 09.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.443 of 2019. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant with the following plea: “…cancelling the regd., sale deed dt.22.01.2009 – document No.119/2009 executed by late D.V. Sreeramulu Naidu and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 in favour of the 1st defendant since the same was not supported by full consideration since fraud has been played by the defendant by inserting the two survey numbers without the consent of the plaintiffs” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/defendant has purchased the suit schedule properties from respondent Nos.2, 3 and their late grandfather D. Sriramulu Naidu, through a registered sale deed No.119/2009 dated 22.01.2009 and the petitioner has been in possession of the properties ever since. Pending the said suit, a mediation took place in village before elders in the presence of attestors of the registered sale deed dated 22.01.2009; in the said mediation, the mediators advised the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit. Believing the same, the petitioner/defendant nor his representative attended the Court proceedings, as a result of which, the trial Court, on 28.08.2012 has passed ex-parte decree by setting aside the registered sale deed dated 22.01.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.130 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 to condone the delay of 92 days in filing the set-aside petition and I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 with a plea to set-aside the ex-parte decree dated 28.08.2012 and to permit the petitioner to file his written statement. 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.1226 of 2023 4. The trial Court has allowed I.A.No.130 of 2013 on 13.07.2014, on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the respondents/plaintiffs. In I.A.No.131 of 2013, fresh notices were directed to be issued to the respondent/plaintiffs and after several adjournments, the case was posted to 14.08.2019, on which date, the counsel representing the petitioner did not appear, as such, I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 was dismissed for default on 14.08.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.443 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 with a plea to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the restoration petition and I.A.No.444 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 to set-aside the ex-parte order dated 14.08.2019. In the said applications, the trial Court ordered notice to the respondents/plaintiffs and posted the case to 09.12.2019, but, due to the absence and non-service of notice to the respondents/plaintiffs, dismissed both the applications on 09.12.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.285 of 2020 in I.A.No.443 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 to condone the delay of 303 days in filing the set-aside petition and I.A.No.286 of 2020 in I.A.No.443 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 with a plea to set-aside the dismissal order dated 09.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.443 of 2019. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.287 of 2020 to condone the delay of 303 days in filing the set- aside petitioner and I.A.No.288 of 2020 in I.A.No.444 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 with a plea to set-aside the dismissal order dated 09.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.444 of 2019. The trial Court has dismissed all the four applications filed by the petitioner on 30.01.2023 and the present civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.285 of 2020 in I.A.No.443 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 5. Heard Sri. G. Jagadeeswar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents. 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.1226 of 2023 6. Admittedly, the suit is filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioner herein seeking cancellation of registered sale deed executed in his favour on 22.01.2009 - document No.119/2009. In the year 2012, when the case was posted for filing of the written statement by the petitioner/defendant, he failed to appear before the Court and filed the same and remained ex- parte. Thereafter, on 28.08.2012, the suit was decreed ex-parte. The petitioner filed I.A.No.131 of 2013 to set-aside the ex-parte decree dated 28.08.2012 and to permit the petitioner to file his written statement, which was allowed by the trial Court by imposing Rs.500/- costs on the petitioner/defendant to be paid to the respondents/plaintiffs and the case underwent several adjournments; on 14.08.2019, I.A.No.131 of 2013 was dismissed for default due to the absence of the petitioner and as the petitioner did not pay costs as directed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.443 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013 to condone delay of 16 days in filing the petition in I.A.No.443 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013, which in fact was dismissed on 09.12.2019 as the petitioner failed to issue notice to the respondents/plaintiffs. It can be seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the applications filed by him that he fell sick due to fever and that his mother passed away on 19.02.2020, his brother-in-law passed away on 19.05.2020 and due to Covid-19 pandemic, he could not file I.A.No.285 of 2020 in I.A.No.443 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay of 303 days in filing the petition to set-aside the dismissal order dated 09.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.443 of 2019. 7. It is evident from the record that the petitioner has been afforded sufficient and repeated opportunities to contest his case before the Court below. Though the applications filed by the petitioner on earlier occasions for condoning the delay in filing the restoration petitions were considered by the trial Court and has directed him to take out notices on the respondents/plaintiffs, the petitioner failed to do the same. As such, the trial Court has dismissed the said applications. However, despite the indulgence 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.1226 of 2023 shown by the Court and the time granted from time to time, the petitioner has failed to make proper use of the same and has remained absent without any justifiable reason. This behaviour indicates that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting his case, but is only trying to drag the proceedings. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.285 of 2020 in I.A.No.443 of 2019 in I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.S.No.104 of 2012. 8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:30.10.2025 Gss