APHC010573772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2980 of 2025 Between: P.Parvathi ...Petitioner and Harijana Nagamma and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. K. Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: Nil The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.No.2980 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 07.10.2025, dismissing I.A.No.400 of 2024 in O.S.No.275 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda, filed by the plaintiff under Order IX, Rule 9 of C.P.C. to restore the suit to file which was dismissed for default on 03.07.2024. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner / plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents Nos.1 to 6 / defendants Nos.1 to 6 for permanent injunction. The defendants Nos.5 and 6 were set ex parte on 01.02.2019. The defendants Nos.1 to 4 were set ex parte on 08.05.2019. Since then, the suit had been coming for the evidence of the plaintiff. On 03.07.2024, though the plaintiff and her counsel were present before the trial Court, nothing was reported about the production of evidence of the plaintiff. As such, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 03.07.2024 observing as follows: “Plaintiff called present and defendant called absent. Plaintiff counsel reported nothing regarding producing plaintiff side evidence. The suit coming for plaintiff side evidence from long time and plaintiff not produced the evidence of plaintiff so far. Hence, this suit is dismissed for default of plaintiff for not producing the evidence". 3. On 02.08.2024, the plaintiff filed the petition in I.A.No.400 of 2024 stating that she has a good case in the suit and that by mistake and oversight, her counsel had not reported anything regarding production of the evidence of the plaintiff and therefore, it is necessary to restore the suit and provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence on her 3 C.R.P.No.2980 of 2025 behalf in the suit, or else she would be put to suffer great and heavy loss. 4. After hearing the petitioner / plaintiff the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that since after all the defendants were set ex parte till 03.07.2024, the plaintiff remained silent for 5 years without filing even affidavit-in-chief examination and that the reason stated for not reporting evidence on 03.07.2024 is not bona fide. The trial Court further observed the fact that the petitioner had chosen to file the petition by engaging another counsel shows that the petitioner and her counsel are not forthright in moving the petition. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 6. Ms.Jagarlamudi Anjanee Priya, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court committed error in passing order impugned in the revision without any fault of the petitioner who is a lay person depending entirely on her counsel for representation and that the trial Court ought to have liberally provided an opportunity to the petitioner to prove her case on merit. 7. As can be seen from the order of the trial Court, there was no condition ever imposed on the plaintiff to adduce evidence, failing which to take a drastic step of dismissing the suit. It is not uncommon that due to huge pendency of the cases or files, the matters are routinely adjourned, not seriously bringing to notice of the parties to get ready with evidence. For the lack of professional legal advice, the party who is a lay person cannot be made a scapegoat. Instead of dismissing the suit for default, the trial Court ought to have cautioned the plaintiff to produce evidence indicating some conditions or terms and then proceed further if the plaintiff fails to comply with the conditions or terms. Without giving such opportunity, the trial Court hastily dismissed the suit for default 4 C.R.P.No.2980 of 2025 finding fault only with the party. Instead, the trial Court ought to have provided an opportunity by imposing costs at least to curtail deliberate tendency to drag on the case. Every endeavor shall be made by a Court to dispose of a case on merit rather than disposing off a matter abruptly to the shock and surprise of a party. 8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 07.10.2025 in I.A.No.400 of 2024 in O.S.No.275 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda. The petition in I.A.No.400 of 2024 is allowed with the condition that the petitioner / plaintiff shall deposit Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) to Mandal Legal Services Authority, Penukonda within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the petitioner / plaintiff fails to comply with the above condition, the revision petition shall stand dismissed without any further order. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 25.11.2025 NSM 5 C.R.P.No.2980 of 2025 18 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2980 of 2025 Date: 25.11.2025 NSM