APHC010098272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 543/2025 Between: 1. CHELLUBOINA ANJANEYULU, S/O SRIRAMULU MALE, AGE 64 YEARS, CULTIVATION R/O DOOR NO.7-164, RAVIGOPPU H/O GUMMULURU VILLAGE PODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHELLUBOINA ANANDA KUMAR, S/O ANJANEYULU MALE, AGE 34YEARS, CONSTABLE R/O MATTAVANI CHERUVU VILLAGE ELAMANCHILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. VASAMSETTI MAHENDRA, 4 YEARS 7 MONTHS, BEING MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN VASAMSETTI LAKSHMI W/O DURGA MAHESWARA RAO FEMALE, AGE 32 YEARS. FALSELY STYLING HERSELF AS CHELLUBOINA LAKSHMI, GUDDU GUDEM ROAD H/O GOGULAPARUAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MATTAVANI CHERUVU, ELAMANCHILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. VASAMSETTI LAKSHMI, W/O DURGA MAHESWARA RAO FEMALE, AGE 32 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE R/O GUDDUGUDEM ROAD H/O GOGULAPURAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MATTAVANI CHERUVU ELAMANCHILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 toMemorandum Civil Revision Petition against the Order dt. 14.02.2025 of passed in I.A.No.753/2024 in O.S.No. 108/2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Palakol, West Godavari District 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 Pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.108/2019 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SARASCHANDRA BABU JAKKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The petitioner is the 1st defendant and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are co-defendants. The 1st respondent herein/plaintiff got filed suit vide in O.S.No.108 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol, for cancellation of the registered settlement deed dated 10.03.2017 vide Doc.No.371 of 2017, which was obtained in the name of the 2nd defendant from the plaintiff by playing fraud and coercion, and for grant of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner was set ex-parte on 11.06.2019. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.753 of 2024 under Order IX Rule 7 and Section 151 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte order dated 11.06.2019 and permit him to file his written statement. 2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff reported no counter, whereas the other defendants filed counter denying the averments and inter alia contended that the petitioner is none other than the father of the plaintiff and that he colluded with the plaintiff and filed the suit with false averments. 3. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Heard Sri Saraschandra Babu Jakkamsetty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice none appeared for the respondents. 5. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application and the grounds of revision, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after receiving the summons from the Court, the same was lost and it slipped out of his mind about the suit. After realizing that the suit was pending, he filed the interlocutory application after five years. In the 4 intervening period, the Covid pandemic had broke out. The Court below erroneously dismissed the said application without assigning any cogent reasons, simply on the ground of delay. If the Court does not permit the petitioner to file written statement and contest the suit, the petitioner’s rights will be affected. In fact, by virtue of the document of settlement deed, the petitioner/1st defendant got life interest over the suit schedule property. As such, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. He further contended that even otherwise the Court may permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiff to establish the falsity of the plaintiff’s case and the petitioner/defendant can urge based on the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff to oppose the suit. To that extent as well, this Court may consider. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner received suit summons but did not engage any counsel or file any written statement, and after lapse of five years, the present application has been filed to set aside the ex-parte order passed against him in the said suit under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground of delay. The trial Court failed to see the purport of Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, wherein the purpose is to allow defendant to rejoin proceedings and defend his case even after being set ex-parte, and the defendant must show reasonable cause for his absence. 8. Order IX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code allows a defendant to join the proceedings at any stage before the final judgment if they can show "good cause" for their previous non-appearance. It is intended to allow the defendant to "set the clock back" and participate from the point of their appearance onwards. 5 9. As stated supra, after lapse of five years, such application has been filed, one of the reasons being out broke the Covid pandemic. Even after considering the Covid period, an extraodinary delay of three years can be seen. The law permits the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff even if the defendant has not filed a written statement and the suit is ordered to proceed ex-parte against him, and the limited defence available to the defendant is not foreclosed. The defendant can always cross-examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the plaintiff’s case. The trial Court missed the purport of Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. 10. To the said extent, this Court is inclined to consider the petitioner’s case. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated in the application filed by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to participate in the trial for the purpose of cross-examination only. The petitioner is permitted to recall the witnesses examined by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and also the witnesses examined on behalf of the other defendants. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 12th February, 2026 JLV 6 231 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 543/2025 Date: 12th February, 2026 JLV