APHC010403922024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2259/2024 Between: 1. MURUGESAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE GOPAL,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. UMA SANKAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE GOPAL,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNASWAMY,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. DURGA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O JEEVRATHNAM,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 5. B.KALABHASHINI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O JEEVARATHNAM,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 6. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O JEEVARATHNAM,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 7. SARAVANA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O JEEVARATHNAM,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT VS,J C.R.P No.2259 of 2024 2 8. SMT. SANTHI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O LATE JAYAMANI,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 9. GNANA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATGE JAYAMANI,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 10. JEEVA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE PUSHPARAJ,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 11. P.SHANTI @ CHANDINI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O LATE PUSHPARAJ,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 12. SIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE PAUL,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 13. SATHYANADHAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE PAUL RAJ,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 14. RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O LATE PAUL RAJ,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 15. R.MONISHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O LATE CK RAJASEKHAR,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 16. E.LATHER, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE CK SWAMY,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 17. C.PREMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE CK SWAMY,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 18. M.SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O CHELLO,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR VS,J C.R.P No.2259 of 2024 3 CHITTOOR DISTRICT 19. DEVANNESAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE CHITTIRA,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 20. LAZAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE CHITTIRAI,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 21. YESU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O LATE CHITTIRAI,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 22. ALFRED, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O LATE STALIN,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 23. ESTHAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE DHANRAJ,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 24. D. SAMIVEL RAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE DHANRAJ,R/O D.NO.20-559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 25. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O DHANRAJ R/O D.NO.20- 559, RAJA STREET, JANAKARAPALLI CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. S RAVINDRA BABU, S/O KG SRINIVASULU @KG SRINIVASULU CHETY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HINDU BUSINESS R/O D.NO. 20- 403, ASM STREET, MITTOOR CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT 2. S KUMARA VELU, (DIED) 3. SMT LILLIYAMMA, W/O LATE KG SRINIVASULU @ KG SRINIVASULU CHETY AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, HINDU BUSINESS R/O D.NO. 20-403, ASM STREET, MITTOOR CHITTOOR TOWN AND VS,J C.R.P No.2259 of 2024 4 DISTRICT 4. S HEMAVATHY, S/O SUNDHARAM AGED - YEARS, HINDU HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO. 1/34(1) VANI STREET, PK PURAM PALAVANTHAM KILAVAITHINANKUPPAM KATPADI VELLORE TAMILNADU 632201 ...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 tomay be pleased to allow the revision and set aside the orders of the courts below and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to stay all proceedings in OS No. 3/2020 on the file of the court of the 9th addl District judge chittoor and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S S BHATT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CH B R P SEKHAR VS,J C.R.P No.2259 of 2024 5 The Court made the following Order The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.60 of 2022 in O.S.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the learned IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 of CPC, seeking to set aside the exparte decree dated 28.01.2022 2. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is as follows: a) The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2020, for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property. As the respondents/defendants failed to contest the suit, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit on 28.01.2022 as exparte. b) The defendants filed I.A No.60 of 2022, after lapse of 6 to 7 months, under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 28.01.2022 and to permit the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 to contest the suit. c) Though the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has vehemently opposed the said application before the learned Trial Court by contending that it was barred by limitation and that no petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay. The learned Trial Court without VS,J C.R.P No.2259 of 2024 6 assigning any cogent reasons, allowed I.A No.60 of 2022. Challenging which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and the learned counsel representing the respondents/defendants. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the respondents/defendants are the permanent residents of Peddakalva village since 1965, and why they have migrated is a question mark. The learned Trial Court after thoroughly going into the summons issued and the endorsements made, ordered substituted mode of service on 24.11.2021 and to that effect the petitioners/plaintiffs has made a paper publication in >Eenadu? news paper in Chittoor District Edition, which covers the area where the defendants reside. Hence, service must be deemed to have been effected. As the respondents/defendants have not entered appearance, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in O.S No.3 of 2020 on 28.01.2022 in favor of the petitioners/plaintiffs. After completion of 6 to 7 months from the date of decree, the respondents/defendants has straightaway filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C and Section 151 of CPC neither there being any petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor giving proper explanation for the delay caused in filing such an application. The learned counsel further states that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application without proper reasons and prays this Court to allow the present civil revision petition. VS,J C.R.P No.2259 of 2024 7 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants supports the order impugned and states that the petitioners/plaintiffs intentionally gave incorrect address of the respondents/defendants as Peddakalva Village, though they are aware that the defendants are actually residing at Chittoor Town. The summons issued to Peddakalva Village were returned with the endorsement <no such persons in the village=. The petitioners/plaintiffs have obtained permission for substituted service on 24.11.2021 and secured the ex-parte decree fraudulently. The petitioners/plaintiffs have also filed false Encumbrance Certificate, photographs and compact disc and mislead the Court and obtained exparte judgment and decree in respect of the schedule property. On coming to know about the order of decree the respondents/defendants filed I.A No.60 of 2022 within 30 days from the date of knowledge, as contemplated under the Article 123 of Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. The respondents/defendants filed I.A.No.60 of 2022 under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 28.1.2022. It is relevant to extract Order IX Rule 13 and the same is as under: 13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant.—In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from VS,J C.R.P No.2259 of 2024 8 appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make anorder setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit: Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also: 1[Provided further than no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.] 2[Explanation.—Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of an any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex parte decree.] 7. The trial Court allowed the I.A.No.60 of 2022 filed by the respondents/defendants. 8. A perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the petitioners/plaintiffs sent summons to Peddakalva Village, G.D Nellore, Chittoor District, and the said summons were returned unserved with an endorsement <no such persons are residing in the said village=. Despite such endorsement, petitioners/plaintiffs obtained permission for substituted service in >Eenadu newspaper, Chittoor District?. It is an undisputed fact that the VS,J C.R.P No.2259 of 2024 9 respondents/defendants are now residing at Chittoor Town, hence, the publication in the Chittoor District edition is not deemed to have been effected. 9. As the summons were not duly served on the respondents/defendants, the limitation period for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as contemplated under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, starts from the date of knowledge of the decree. The respondents/defendants filed I.A No.60 of 2022 within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the decree. The said application i.e., I.A No.60 of 2022 was allowed by the learned Trial Court by setting aside the exparte decree dated 28.01.2022 and permitting the respondents/defendants to contest the suit on merits. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, as the summons were not duly served on the defendants, they have not contested the suit. Being satisfied that immediately after getting knowledge of the decree and judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in favor of the petitioners/plaintiffs, the defendants have moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree within the 30 days from the date of knowledge. On filing of the same, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.60 of 2022 and set aside the exparte decree order, which need not be interrupted by this Court. However considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2020, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to complete the trial in the present suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. VS,J C.R.P No.2259 of 2024 10 11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :17.10.2025. Ksj