APHC010215722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1164/2025 Between: 1. SHAMSAHD BEE, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O LATE AMEER BASHA, 2. KADIR,, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O LATE AMEER BASHA, PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE R/O AT MITTAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KUPPAM,MANDAL. 3. SHEERIN,, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O MOULANA, R/AT KONGATTAM VILLAGE AND POST, V. KOTA MANDAL. 4. NOWSHAD BASHA,, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE CHOTA SAHEB, R/AT OLD MASJID STREET (PATHA MASJID VEEDHI), RALLABUDUGURU VILLAGE AND POST, SANTHIPURAM MANDAL. 5. KASIM SAHEB,, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LATE CHOTA SAHEB, 6. JOWHAR, , AGED 28 YEARS, S/O KASIM SAHEB, 7. ANWAR, , AGED 50 YEARS, S/O LATE CHOTA SAHEB, 8. AMANULLAH SAHEB, , AGED 45 YEARS, S/O LATE CHOTA SAHEB @ GAFOOR SAB, 9. JAMEEL,, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE CHOTA SAHEB @ GAFOOR SAB, 10. SHABRIN BI,, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O AMANULLAH, 11. RAFEE,, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O ANWAR, PETITIONERS NO. 5 TO 11 ARE R/AT GANESHPURAM VILLAGE AND POST, KUPPAM MANDAL. 12. HANEEF,, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LATE CHOTA SAHEB (WATCHMAN IN PATCHA COMPANY), 13. ZAKEER,, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O HANEEF, 14. AMMAJI, , AGED 50 YEARS, W/O HANEEF, 15. BABU,, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O HANEEF, PETITIONERS 12 TO 15 ARE R/AT AUTO STAND ROAD, MODEL COLONY, KUPPAM TOWN, POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 16. TAILOR MUBARAK,, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O ANWAR, 17. SAHINA BI,, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O TAILORE MUBARAK, PETITIONERS NO. 16 AND 17 ARE R/AT 8/48, SERICULTURE SRK, J CRP No.1164 of 2025 2 OFFICE ROAD, PALACE COMPOUND, KUPPAM TOWN, POST AND MANDAL ...PETITIONER(S) A N D 1. A JALLABUDDIN SAHEB, , S/O AMEER SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT V. MITTAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. MUSTAFA, S/O LATE AMEER SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT V. MITTAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KUPPAM 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 to set aside the orders dated 21.03.2025 passed in I.A No 146 of 2025 in O.S NO 122 OF 2024 on the file of the AddI civil judge (Junior Division) Kuppam and consequently allow the present petition and pass IA 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 stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to orders dated 21.03.2025 in I.A No 146 of 2025 in O.S NO122 OF 2024 on the file of the on the file of the AddI civil judge (junior division) Kuppam, pending disposal of the above CRP, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 vacate the interim order, granted by this Hon’ble High Court in C.R.P No. 1164 of 2025, Dt.09-05-2025, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BASHA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VELAGANI NARASIMHULU The Court made the following: SRK, J CRP No.1164 of 2025 3 O R D E R The present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed, challenging the Order dated 21.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.146 of 2025 in O.S.No.122 of 2024 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kuppam (for brevity ‘the trial Court’), whereby and whereunder, the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) to set-aside the ex parte Order dated 23.01.2025 passed in O.S.No.122 of 2024 by the trial Court, was dismissed. 2. 2. Petitioners herein are the defendants, and respondents herein are the plaintiffs, in O.S.No.122 of 2024 on the file of the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to, as they were arrayed in the suit proceedings pending before the trial Court. 3. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.122 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kuppam, against the defendants for the reliefs of Declaration of their right and title to the suit A and B schedule lands and for consequential Permanent Injunction. The said suit was posted to 23.01.2024 for filing of written statement by the defendants. But as they did not file the same even after expiry of statutory period, the trial Court set the defendants ex parte on 23.01.2024 and proceeded with the suit SRK, J CRP No.1164 of 2025 4 proceedings. Consequently, the defendants filed I.A.No.146 of 2025 under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC before the trial Court seeking to set-aside the ex parte Order dated 23.01.2025. 4. The trial Court vide Order dated 21.03.2025 dismissed the I.A.No.146 of 2025 holding that no proof, to the effect that the defendant No.1 was suffering from ill-health on the date of the adjournment, was filed. Aggrieved of the said impugned order, the present Revision Petition came to be filed. 5. This Court, at admission stage, vide Order dated 09.05.2025 passed the following in the present CRP: Notice before Admission. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to take out personal notice to the respondents by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and to file proof of service into the Registry by 27.06.2025. Post on 27.06.2025. Till then, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in O.S No.122 of 2024 on the file of Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kuppam. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would contend that the defendant No.1 was suffering from ill-health on 23.01.2025, and hence, the defendants could not file the written statement, and as a result, they were set ex parte in the suit SRK, J CRP No.1164 of 2025 5 proceedings. Learned counsel further contends that when the trial Court posted the matter to 05.03.2025, they filed I.A.No.146 of 2025 under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC along with written statement, but the trial Court, without affording an opportunity, dismissed the said application vide impugned Order dated 21.03.2025. Learned counsel would contend that non-production of Medical Certificate to prove that the defendant No.1 was suffering from ill-health is not a proper ground to dismiss the application. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff would contend that the alleged ground of ill-health taken by the petitioners/defendants is not supported by any Medical Certificate, and therefore, the petitioners/ defendants are not entitled to the relief as sought for. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the CRP. 8. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material available on record. 9. The relevant provision of law under which I.A.No.146 of 2025 was filed before the trial Court, is Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. The object of the said provision is to afford an opportunity to defendant, who was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on, for hearing, to participate in the further proceedings. The Court is required to examine whether sufficient SRK, J CRP No.1164 of 2025 6 cause has been shown for the previous non-appearance. The discretion under the said provision has to be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the fact that ordinarily a lis should be adjudicated on merits rather than by shutting out a party from contesting the proceedings, particularly when the defendant expresses his/her readiness to participate in the suit proceedings. 10. The contention of petitioners/defendants is that defendant No.1 was suffering from ill-health on the relevant date, and the trial Court did not consider such contention, and rejected the same only on the ground that no proof of Medical Certificate was produced in its support. 11. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the petitioners/defendants contend that they filed written statement in the suit proceedings along with the impugned application and they are ready and willing to contest the suit. Admittedly, the relief sought by the plaintiffs is Declaration and Permanent Injunction, which requires full-fledged trial and it has to be adjudicated on merits. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without going into merits of the petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC deserves to be considered afresh by the trial SRK, J CRP No.1164 of 2025 7 Court after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides, to adjudicate as to whether the contention of petitioners/defendants constitutes sufficient cause, and appropriate orders be passed, in accordance with law. 12. Therefore, the impugned Order dated 21.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.146 of 2025 in O.S.No.122 of 2024 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kuppam, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.146 of 2025 is restored to the file of the trial Court. The trial Court shall consider the said application afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides, and on the basis of the material placed before it, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, being uninfluenced by any of the observation made by this Court. 13. However, having regard to the fact that since the petitioners/defendants failed to file their written statement within the stipulated time, the petitioners/ defendants shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the respondents/ plaintiffs on or before the date of hearing of I.A.No.146 of 2025, and upon payment of the aforesaid costs, the trial Court shall take up I.A.No.146 of 2025 and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a SRK, J CRP No.1164 of 2025 8 copy of this order. Consequently, the interim stay, dated 09.05.2025 granted by this Court stands vacated. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the CRP. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Revision Petition shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 11th September, 2026. DNB