IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 854 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order in C.M.A.No. 1/2016 dated 27-09-2024 on the file of the Court of the Learned XV Additional District Judge Nuzvid. Between: 1. Suraneni Satyavathi @ Prameela, W/o.Late Venakta Apparao, Aged 61 years, R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. 2. Suraneni Prasad, S/o.Late Venkata Apparao, Aged 41 years R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. 3. Suraneni Kalavathi, W/o.Late Muralirao, Aged59 years, R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Manal, Krishna District. 4. Kotagiri Lavanya, W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 38 years, R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal Krishna District. 5. Suraneni Ranga Rao, R/o.MankolluChatraiMandal, Krishna District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 4 to 8 AND 1. Sagiraju Venkata Rama Raju, S/o.Late Konda Narayana Raju, Aged 79 years, R/o.Recherla, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District. 2. Sagiraju Mallapa Raju @ Santhi Raju, S/o.Late Konda Narayana Raju, Aged 71 years, R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. 3. Sagiraju Ranga Raju, S/o.Late Konda Narayana Raju, Aged 69 years, R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. 4. Sagiraju Narasimha Raju, S/o.Late Konda Narayana Raju, Aged 71 years, R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. 5. Addada Annapoornamma, W/o Pullam Raju, Aged 76 years, R/o.Mankollu, Chathrai Mandal, Krishna District. S/o. Narayana Rao, Aged 56 years. 6. Sagiraju Rama Rajyam, W/o.Sattiraju, Aged 71 years, R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. SagirajuSitha Rama Raju, S/o.Sattiraju, Aged 47 years, R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal Krishna District. Sagiraju Sambasiva Ramakrishnam Raju, S/o.Sattiraju, Aged 47 years, R/o. Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. Sagiraju Suryanaraya Raju, S/o.Sattiraju, Aged 47 years, R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. 10. Sagiraju Narayana Raju, S/o.Pullamraju, Aged 61 years, R/o. Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. 11. Sagiraju Padma Sri, W/o.Kamaraju, Aged 46 years R/o.Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal Krishna District 7. 8. 9. ...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to condone the delay of 75 days in representing the C.R.P. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 101/2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Nuzvid. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. G. VIVEKANAND Counsel for the Respondents: — The Court made the following ORDER: 1 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.854 of 2025) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 854/2025 ORDER; Heard Sri G.Vivekanand, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2024 passed in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2016 on the file of the learned XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Nuzvid. 3. By the said judgment, the appellate court has set aside the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid in I.A. No. 43 of 2009 in O.S. No. 101 of 2004. 4. The present respondents 1 to 11, who are either the original plaintiffs or the substituted legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.101 of 2004 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, seeking a declaration and injunction, and alternatively, recovery of possession if found not to be in possession. The suit was dismissed for default due to non-prosecution on 20.11.2008. 2 (RNT,J C.R,P.No,854 of 2025) The plaintiffs filed LA. No. 43 of 2009 seeking restoration of the suit after setting aside the order of dismissal in default. The said LA., was dismissed on 09.08.2012 observing that although time had been granted earlier to the plaintiffs to file certain documents, but they failed to produce those documents even at the stage of restoration, despite directions issued in the previous litigation in S.A. No. 125 of 1994, wherein the plaintiffs were specifically directed to furnish those documents to substantiate their claim. 5. 6. The reason stated by the plaintiffs for their absence date of dismissal, due to the ill-health of the 1®‘ plaintiff, was not disbelieved, There was no finding recorded that contradicted the stated for non-appearance. on the cause 7. Challenging the order dated 09.08.2012, the plaintiffs filed C.M.A. No. 1 of 2016 before the XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Nuzvid. 8. C.M.A. No. 1 of 2016 was filed with a delay of 913 days, which was condoned by order dated 15.03.2015 passed in LA. No. 728 of 2015. 9. The appellate court allowed the appeal, observing that the cause shown by the plaintiffs was sufficient. It was also recorded that 3 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.854 of 2025) the respondents (present petitioners) neither filed any counter to the I.A. No. 43 of 2009 nor had chosen to contest the application. The appellate court observed that the trial court had erroneously disnnissed the petition, having considered irrelevant aspects rather than applying the appropriate legal provisions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court's order dismissing the restoration application was justified. The plaintiffs were not ready with the documents necessary to proceed with the suit. He submits that the appellate court ought not to have 10. interfered with the trial court’s order. This Court is not convinced by the argument. The same deserves rejection. The issue that requires consideration is whether the cause shown by the plaintiffs for their absence on the date of dismissal was sufficient to justify restoration. The trial Court did not consider this aspect in correct perspective, instead, rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiffs were not ready with the documents to proceed with the trial. Such reasoning is legally At the stage of considering an application to set aside the dismissal of the suit in default, the learned trial Court was required to only consider the cause for non-appearance on that particular day, if that was sufficient or not. On that aspect, the cause shown has not 11. erroneous. 4 ' i (RNT,J C.R.P.No.854of 2025) been disbelieved. There was also no counter filed to the contrary nor contest to the said application, against the plaintiffs/respondents that there There is also no finding recorded was any negligence or want of bonafides. The ground of illness would be a sufficient cause, for which, the plaintiffs/respondents were prevented to appear on the date fixed in the suit. 12. So far as, non-production of documents is concerned, since the suit had already been dismissed, there would be for the plaintiffs to proceed with a dismissed suit and to produce documents at that stage, unless the application was allowed and the suit restored. The requirement to file documents would arise only after the suit was restored to the file. no occasion 13. On specific query, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defendants did not challenge the 15.03.2015, condoning the delay in filing the C.M.A.N0.1 of 2016, which has attained finality. order dated 14. Thus, considered the judgment in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2016 on the file of the learned XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District, is legally correct and sustainable in law. 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.854 of 2025) 16. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 17. However, having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2004, the learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the same expeditiously. No order as to costs. 18. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending. shall also stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASi^RAJU ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The XV Additional District Judge Nuzvid. 2. One CC to SRI. G. VIVEKANAND Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies Chp nm CHP HIGH COURT RNT,J DATED:25/04/2025 •yys- o mil =5 C 6 SEP 2025 ORDER JJ e.^ (;urrenl Section £'e'sp>ATCv'^<^ CRP.No.854 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION