APHC010104772018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: Between: 1. SMT.PATIL ANNAPURNAMMA, W/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOUD AGED 60 YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE 2. PATIL MALLIKARJUNA GOWD, S/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOWD AGED 35 YEARS OCC PVT. SERVICE 3. PATIL MANJULA, D/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOWD, AGED 32 YEARS 4. PATIL UMA MAHESWAR GOWD, S/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOWD AGED 30 YEARS. ALL R/O DNO. MIG II, 760, KBHB COLONY, HYDERABAD 1. PATIL SOMASEKHAR GOUD, S/O PATIL MALLANNA GOUD AGED 53 YEARS OCC CULTIVATOR R/O YENUMULADODDI(V) KUNDURPI (M) ANARITHAPU 2. PATIL BASAVANNA GOUD, S/O P. MALLANNA GOUD AGED 48 YEARS, SRI MALLESWARI MEDICAL SHOP BANGLORE ROAD, OPP TO VASAVI KALYANAMANDAPAM, CHILLIKERA, KARNATAKA STATE 3. PATIL VIRUPAKSHI GOUD, S/O P. MAHANNA GOUD AGED 43 YEARS R/O DO R.G. NAGARKOLLALA, VENUGOPAL NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 OF 2018 SMT.PATIL ANNAPURNAMMA, W/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOUD AGED 60 YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE PATIL MALLIKARJUNA GOWD, S/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOWD AGED 35 YEARS OCC PVT. SERVICE PATIL MANJULA, D/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOWD, AGED 32 YEARS UMA MAHESWAR GOWD, S/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOWD AGED 30 YEARS. ALL R/O DNO. MIG II, 760, KBHB COLONY, ...APPELLANT(S) AND PATIL SOMASEKHAR GOUD, S/O PATIL MALLANNA GOUD AGED 53 YEARS OCC CULTIVATOR R/O YENUMULADODDI(V) KUNDURPI (M) ANARITHAPUR DISTRICT PATIL BASAVANNA GOUD, S/O P. MALLANNA GOUD AGED 48 YEARS, SRI MALLESWARI MEDICAL SHOP BANGLORE ROAD, OPP TO VASAVI KALYANAMANDAPAM, CHILLIKERA, KARNATAKA STATE PATIL VIRUPAKSHI GOUD, S/O P. MAHANNA GOUD AGED 43 YEARS R/O DO R.G. REVANTHA KUMAR D. NO. 18-1 NAGARKOLLALA, VENUGOPAL NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 2018 SMT.PATIL ANNAPURNAMMA, W/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOUD PATIL MALLIKARJUNA GOWD, S/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOWD PATIL MANJULA, D/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOWD, AGED 32 YEARS UMA MAHESWAR GOWD, S/O NAGABHUSHANAM GOWD AGED 30 YEARS. ALL R/O DNO. MIG II, 760, KBHB COLONY, ...APPELLANT(S) PATIL SOMASEKHAR GOUD, S/O PATIL MALLANNA GOUD AGED 53 YEARS OCC CULTIVATOR R/O YENUMULADODDI(V) PATIL BASAVANNA GOUD, S/O P. MALLANNA GOUD AGED 48 YEARS, SRI MALLESWARI MEDICAL SHOP BANGLORE ROAD, OPP TO VASAVI KALYANAMANDAPAM, CHILLIKERA, PATIL VIRUPAKSHI GOUD, S/O P. MAHANNA GOUD AGED 43 1-714, THARAK NAGARKOLLALA, VENUGOPAL NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR. 2 4. PATIL MANEMMA, W/O P. MALLIKARJUNA GOWD AGED 43 YEARS C/O R.G. REVANTH KUMAR D.NO. 18-1-714, THARAK NAGAR, KOILALA, VENUGOPAL NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAM. 5. PARIL GOWRAMMA, W/O MRUTHYUNJAYA GOWD AGED 46 YEARS H.NO. 512, PRAGATHI NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD 6. SMT M SUNANDAMMA, W/O M. SOMANA GOWD AGED 48 YEARS R/O FLAT NO. 21, 3RD FLOOR, GANGA VIHAR APARTMENTS, DOMALAGUDA, HYDERABAD. 7. PATIL JAYAGOPAL GOWD, S/O MALLIKARJUNA GOWD AGED 31 YEARS R/O YENUMULADODDI (V) KUNDURPI (M) ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 8. SMT CHIKKAJI GIRIJAMMA, W/O C. HANUMANTHA GOWD AGED 45 YEARS R/O UNDABANDA (V) VIDAPAOAKAL (M) ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 9. SMT PATHL LALEKKA, W/O BASANNA AGED 43 YEARS R/O BUDAGAVI (V) URAVAKONDA(M) ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 10. SMT THOKALA HAMPAKKA, W/O BOBBAIAH AGED 41 YEARS C/O. SAI MILK DIARY KALYANDURG ROAD, NEAR RAJA HOTEL, ANANTHAPURAM. 11. SMT BANASI PUSHPALATHA, W/O KARIYANNA AGED 41 YEARS DO S. RAM BABU H.NO. 20/38/8, BANK COLONY, WEST VENKATAPURAM, SECUNDERABAD 12. SMT HOTHURU SWAPNAKKA, W/O KISHORE GOWD R/O KONDAKONDLA (V) VAJRAKARUR (M) ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 13. SMT PATIL MEENAKSHAMMA, W/O CHANDRA GOWD AGED 60 YEARS R/O YENAMALADODDI (V) KUNDURPI (M) ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 14. PATIL CHIDANANDA GOWD, S/O P. CHANDRA GOWD AGED 33 YEARS R/O YENAMALADODDI (V) KUNDURPI (M) ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 15. SMT H SRIDEVI, WO H. GANGADHAR AGED 37 YEARS RFMT AND TRACTOR NAGAR, GARLADINNE (M) ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 16. SMT P VISALAKSHMAMMA, W/O MALLIKARJUNA GOWD AGED 65 YEARS R/O C/O JAYAPAL GOWD 9-3-901, SAI NAGAR, URAVAKONDA (TOWN AND MANDAL) ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 17. SMT P SUVARNAMMA, W/O LATE P. NAGE BHUSHANAM GOWD AGED 62 YEARS R/O TENAGALLU (V) KUNDURPI(M) ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. D NARENDAR NAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA The Court made the following Judgment : 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 43, Rule 1 of the C.P.C, questioning the Order dated 15.12.2017 in I.A.No. 104 of 2015 in O.S.No.27 of 2009 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu (for brevity “learned trial court”). 2. The Appellants are Plaintiffs and Respondents are Defendants in the suit before learned trial court. 3. The Appellants filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C to set aside the dismissal order, dated 10.08.2015 and to restore the suit on the ground that she was not well on 10.08.2015 and the same could not be communicated to her counsel. The Respondent No.1 filed counter stating that Appellants/ Plaintiffs have not filed Doctor certificate with regard to the alleged ill health. 4. On hearing both sides, learned trial court observed that the suit was coming up for further cross-examination of PW-1 on 10.08.2015, prior to that costs imposed for five times. In view of no acceptable evidence was placed before learned trial court with regard to the alleged ill-health and also non- filing of any application seeking adjournment, learned trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition came to be filed. 5 5. Heard Mr. D. Narendar Naik, learned counsel for the Appellants/ Plaintiffs and Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the Respondents. 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellants/ Plaintiffs would contend that on 10.08.2015, the suit was came up for cross- examination of PW-1, as the Appellant No.1 was suffered with illness, she could not attend before trial court and also the same was not communicated to her counsel, which is neither willful nor wanton. It is further contended that the observation of learned trial court that no acceptable evidence is placed before learned trial court about the ailment of PW-1, who was also suffering with high B.P etc., is objectionable, though it is clearly averred in the affidavit. Learned trial court without providing an opportunity to PW-1, though she was represented by an Advocate, straight away dismissed the suit for partition, which is illegal and arbitrary. 7. Learned counsel for the Appellants also relied on a decision of this Court in C.M.A.No.523 of 2024, dated 05.03.2025, wherein the coordinate bench of this Court held as follows:- 13. The satisfaction of the court on the ‘sufficient cause’ is the crux in deciding restoration applications under Order IX, Rule 9. It is reiterated as a principle of law that Order IX, Rule 9 being procedural in nature, “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal consideration as an elastic expression in order to do substantial justice rather than being struck on technical rigidities. 14. Further, it is settled law that every case shall be disposed on merits rather than disposing otherwise. In this context of Order IX, Rule 9, a 6 coordinate Bench of this Court in “Mahd.Khaja v. C. Nand Kumar” 1 observed that when substantial rights are involved, it is expedient to decide the matter on merits than to dismiss the suit for default. The case on hand is for suit for partition and the rights of the plaintiff and defendant have to be decided on merits and those rights are substantial in nature. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal inter alia contended that the Appellants/ Petitioners are dodging the matter since 2009 by taking series of adjournments, even though learned trial court imposed costs. Since conditions imposed by learned trial court has not been complied, the trial court passed dismissal order. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and prays to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 9. A perusal of the record would show that admittedly the Appellant No.1 i.e PW-1 could not be appeared due to ill-health as per the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants. However, the suit is filed for partition among the family members. This Court observed that when substantial rights are involved, it is expedient to decide the matter on merits than to dismiss the suit for default. The case on hand is for suit for partition and the rights of the Plaintiffs and Defendants have to be decided on merits and those rights are substantial in nature as per decision cited supra. Therefore, it is required to adjudicate the lis in the matter by way of trial. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be allowed with certain conditions. 1 2000 AIHC (2694) (AP) 7 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the Respondents. Since the suit is of the year 2009, there shall be a direction to learned trial court to conclude the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the Appellants as well as Respondents shall co-operate the trial court for fair disposal of the suit within the time frame as fixed by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 05.02.2026 KK