P a g e | 1 APHC010430802026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 447 OF 2026 Between: 1. Mabbu Tirupalu alias Tirupataiah, S/o Peda Vemaiah, aged about 70 years,Occ Business, R/o Balaji Nagar,Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District 2. Mabbu Ramesh, S/o Tirupalu,Aged about 44 years, Occ Jr. Advocate,C/o J Chandra Mohan Rao, D.No. 21-436,Yahayali Street, Big Bazar, Near PNM School,Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioners AND 1. Yamala Koteswramma, W/o Sreeramulu,Aged about 63 years, House wife,R/o D.No. 2-93, Nawabpet, Kummari Street,Nellore City SPSR Nellore District. 2. Oruganti Lakshmaiah, died 3. Oruganti Varalakshmi, W / o late LakshmaiahAged about 62 years, 4. Oruganti Yedukondalu, W / o late Lakshmaiah,Aged about 41 years, 5. Raj ampeta Padmaja, D / o late Lakshmiah,Aged about 27 years, ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Eerla Satheesh Kumar,SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA P a g e | 2 Counsel for the Respondents: P BADRINATH P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLENOUS APPEAL NO: 447 OF 2026 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 23.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.18 of 2019 in O.S.No.112 of 2014 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act – cum – V Additional District Judge, Nellore, whereby the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC seeking to set aside ex parte decree dated 04.12.2018 was dismissed (for brevity parties herein are referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court). 2. Brief facts of the case are that: i. Parties are relatives to each other and the case of the petitioners is that no notices were served upon them and they had neither engaged counsel who filed vakalat on their behalf nor affixed signatures on the vakalat, and they came to know the fate of the suit on 28.12.2018 when the respondent/plaintiff and her husband posed threat to them by intimating the decree of the suit. 2nd petitioner, being an Advocate, came to the Court along with his Senior Advocate, verified the status of the case and applied for certified copies. Accordingly, petitioners/defendants filed application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree dated 04.12.2018. ii. Against the said application, the respondent/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made therein and contended that 2nd P a g e | 4 petitioner/2nd defendant, being an Advocate, could not make such allegations, particularly when the defendants had received summons and had engaged an Advocate on their behalf on 22.12.2014. It was further contended that, despite receiving summons, the defendants failed to file their written statement within 90 days and, therefore, they were set ex parte. 3rd defendant filed a written statement when the matter was posted for trial. Subsequently, the 3rd defendant died, whereupon the suit was posted for taking steps to bring his legal representatives on record. His legal representatives were accordingly brought on record as defendant Nos.4 to 6. Thereafter, after filing a neat copy of the plaint, fresh summons were served upon defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.1 entered appearance through his counsel on 01.05.2018; however, he did not file his written statement even thereafter. The respondent/plaintiff subsequently initiated execution proceedings and further petitioners/ defendants Nos.1 and 2 got knowledge about the execution proceedings and they constrained to made their appearance through another counsel on their behalf in the execution proceedings and filed their counter. iii. The learned trial Judge, after considering the entire evidence and material available on record, recorded findings that petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 had not filed any documentary evidence to show that they were not residing at the addresses mentioned in the plaint. The docket proceedings dated 22.12.2014 disclose that one Ch. Ramesh was engaged as Advocate and he filed vakalat on behalf of the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit was thereafter posted to 29.01.2015 for filing of the written statement by P a g e | 5 defendant Nos.1 and 2. On that date, as there was no representation on their behalf, they were set ex parte. Again, on 05.01.2018, one Banda Sreenivasulu filed vakalat on behalf of the 1st defendant. Though the 1st defendant had previously engaged an Advocate, fresh summons were issued to him. However, he failed to file his written statement and was accordingly set ex parte. Thereafter, summons were issued to the 2nd defendant by way of substituted service, and he was set ex parte on 21.08.2018. Petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that the signatures subscribed on the vakalat on their behalf did not belong to them and the same were forged. However, they did not take any steps to establish that the Advocates who had filed vakalat on their behalf had not, in fact, been engaged by them. Accordingly, learned judge dismissed the application. 3. Aggrieved by that, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed. 4. Heard Sri Eerla Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for appellants/petitioners and Sri P.Ravi Teja, learned counsel representing Sri P.Badrinath, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for appellants/ petitioners/ defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that defendants have not received summons from the Court and the 1st respondent/plaintiff, despite the specific direction of the Court to serve summons at the correct addresses of the defendants, had caused summons to be issued to incorrect addresses and misled the court and obtained the decree. P a g e | 6 6. Learned counsel for appellants/petitioners further contended that along with the petition under Order XI Rule 13, petitioners have annexed Aadhar cards, Voter cards and Ration card of them which establishes that they are not residing in the addresses mentioned in the plaint. That apart, petitioners had neither signed the vakalat filed on their behalf nor received the summons and the trial Court had failed to properly consider the said contention and had dismissed the application without affording them an effective opportunity to establish the same. 7. Considered the submissions made on either side. Though learned counsel for appellants/petitioners contended that no opportunity was afforded to them by the trial Court, the said contention cannot be accepted in its entirety, as petitioners participated in the enquiry conducted in the application. However, the principal issue raised by them is that they had neither engaged the Advocates who had filed vakalat on their behalf nor signed the said vakalat, and they had not received the summons. In that regard, learned trial Judge has recorded a specific finding that petitioners failed to take any steps to prove their case. 8. However, as the very dispute is that they have not signed the vakalat and they have not received summons and the notices were served on them by way of substitute service, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order and afford an opportunity to the appellants/petitioners to establish whether appellants/petitioners had, in fact, executed the vakalat and engaged P a g e | 7 the Advocates who appeared on their behalf, as referred to in the impugned order. 9. Since the application has been filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration of the said application, after affording an opportunity to appellants/petitioners to establish whether they had, in fact, engaged the counsel who filed vakalat on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2. If, upon such enquiry, it is established that petitioners had not engaged the counsel, as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the trial Court shall consider the application on its own merits in accordance with law. However, in the event, if the evidence establishes that petitioners had, in fact, engaged the counsel and the plea taken by them regarding non-engagement of counsel and lack of knowledge of the proceedings is incorrect, appellants/petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 10. With the above observations, the impugned order dated 23.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.18 of 2019 in O.S.No.112 of 2014 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act – cum – V Additional District Judge, Nellore is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders regarding above said aspect after affording opportunity to both sides. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. P a g e | 8 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 24.09.2026 Dvs P a g e | 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 151 CIVIL MISCELLENOUS APPEAL NO: 447 OF 2026 Date: 24.09.2026 Dvs