APHC010632782023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 876 of 2026, 3033 of 2023 and 573 of 2024 C.R.P.No. 876 of 2026 Between: 1. KATTA SUBBAIAH, S/O.BUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. GURAJADA VILLAGE, PAMIDIMUKKALA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. MALEMPATI VENKATA RAMANA KUMAR, S/o. Venkata Krishnaiah, aged about 58 years, R/o.Vuyyuru Village and Mandal, Krishna District ...RESPONDENT 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 Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court (against the orders passed in I.A.No.229/2022 in O.S.No. 18/2019 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Vuyyuru dt. 06.04.2023 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 dispense with filing of the certified copy of the common orders in IA.No.229/2022 and IA.No.228 of 2023 dt; 06.04.2023 in the above CRP and grant IA NO: 2 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 condone delay of 164 days in filing the above CRP and grant Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V L N SARMA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SAMANTHA KRISHNA SRIRAMAKAVACHAM C.R.P.No: 3033/2023 Between: 1. KATTA SUBBAIAH, S/O.BUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. GURAJADA VILLAGE, PAMIDIMUKKALA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. MALEMPATI VENKATA RAMANA KUMAR, S/o. Venkata Krishnaiah, aged about 58 years, R/o.Vuyyuru Village and Mandal, Krishna District ...RESPONDENT 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 Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court against the orders passed in I.A.No.228/2022 in O.S.No.18/2019 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Vuyyuru dt. 28.06.2023 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in execution of the decree dt. 29.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.18/2019 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Vuyyuru pending disposal of the above CRP and grant 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 vacate the stay order dtd. 30-01-2024 passed in CRP/3033/2023, and pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the connected matters CRP/3033/2023, CRP/573/2024 and CRP(SR)/50500/2023 by fixing an early date, 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 May be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dt.30.01.2024 passed in C.R.P. No. 3033 of 2023, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V L N SARMA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SAMANTHA KRISHNA SRIRAMAKAVACHAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 573/2024 Between: 1. KATTA SUBBAIAH, S/O.BUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. GURAJADA VILLAGE, PAMIDIMUKKALA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. MALEMPATI VENKATA RAMANA KUMAR, S/o. Venkata Krishnaiah, aged about 58 years, R/o.Vuyyuru Village and Mandal, Krishna District ...RESPONDENT 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 begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court against the orders passed in I.A.No.229/2022 in O.S.No.18/2019 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Vuyyuru dt 06.04.2023 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 dispense with filing of the certified copy of the common orders in lA.Nos.228 and 229/2022 dt: 06.04.2023 in the above CRP and grant such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of th6 case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V L N SARMA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SAMANTHA KRISHNA SRIRAMAKAVACHAM The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER For the sake of convenience, the parties in these revisions shall be referred to as per their array in the suit O.S.No.18 of 2019 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Vuyyur. 2. The defendant in the suit O.S.No.18 of 2019 filed C.R.P.Nos.876 of 2026 against the order, dated 06.04.2023 in I.A.No.229 of 2022. Page 5 of 9 C.R.P.Nos.3033 of 2023 and 573 of 2024 were filed against the order, dated 06.04.2023 in I.A.No.228 of 2022. 3. Since the revisions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common order. 4. Heard Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Smt. Samantha Krishna Sriramakavacham, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.18 of 2019, for recovery of money, on the strength of a promissory note, dated 09.04.2016. The suit was decreed ex parte on 29.11.2019. Since the decree was not honoured, the plaintiffs initiated execution proceedings vide E.P.No.7 of 2021 under Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C. 6. On receipt of summons in the said E.P., the defendants filed I.A.No.228 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 640 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. and I.A.No.229 of 2022 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 29.11.2019. 7. The trial court, by common order dated 06.04.2023, allowed both the applications subject to the condition of depositing the entire suit amount before the court either by way of FDR or directly towards security, within 3 months. Thereafter, the interlocutory applications were adjourned to 11.05.2023 and to 28.06.2023. On 28.06.2023, the trial Court dismissed both the applications holding that the defendants failed to comply with the condition. 8. Initially, the defendants filed C.R.P.No.3033 of 2023. A coordinate bench of this Court granted an interim order on 30.01.2024, and later the interim order was extended. 9. Pending C.R.P.No.3033 of 2023, the defendant filed C.R.P.Nos.573 of 2024 and 876 of 2026, complaining that the condition imposed by the trial Court, while allowing I.A.Nos.228 and 229 of 2024, is onerous. 10. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether the common order dated 06.04.2023 in I.A.Nos.228 and 229 of 2023 in O.S.18 of 2019 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Vuyyur, brooks interference of this Court? 2. Whether the condition imposed by the trial court in the common order, dated 06.04.2023, while allowing the applications, is legally sustainable? 11. As seen from the material available on record, the trial Court allowed I.A.Nos.228 and 229 of 2022 by a docket order, dated 06.04.2023. The operative portion reads thus: “In the result, this petition is allowed on condition to deposit the suit amount before this Court either by way of FDR., towards security or by directly according to the convenience of the petitioner within 3 months. Subject to the above condition both the petitions are allowed. For complying condition, call on 11.05.2023.” 12. On 11.05.2023, on the request made by the learned counsel for the defendants, the matter was adjourned to 28.06.2023. On 28.06.2023, the trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the condition was not complied with. 13. As per the order dated 06.04.2023, the trial court granted three months to comply with the condition. However, the trial court dismissed the applications on 28.06.2023, for non-compliance of the condition, even before expiry of the time granted. Thus, the trial court committed an error in dismissing the applications on 28.06.2023. Hence, the common order under the revisions brooks interference of this Court. 14. Further, the petitioner filed two other civil revision petitions, as noted supra, assailing the onerous condition imposed by the trial court, directing the defendant to deposit the entire suit amount. The question whether such a condition while allowing an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., is legally sustainable, is no longer res integra. 15. In Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Sri Pamerla Suryarao1 the learned Single Judge of the composite High Court held that imposing onerous condition of paying part or whole of the decree amount, while allowing the petition to set aside ex parte order, is not justifiable. In para 4, it was observed as under: 4. It is trite to state that once an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is allowed and the ex parte decree is set aside, ex parte decree extinguishes. In other words, ordering an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. obliterates ex parte decree from records. If that is so, a liability flowing from such ex parte decree should also cease to be operative. Setting aside a decree cannot be equated with suspension of operation of a 1 (1996) 2 ALT 68 decree because in the latter case, despite suspension the decree continues to exist though it is not operative. Therefore, the Courts will not be justified in imposing conditions as to payment of part of decretal amount while allowing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. as they normally do while suspending operation of decrees in the appears. Therefore, the applicant- defendant cannot be saddled with a liability in full or part flowing from an ex parte decree, which is no longer in existence. Secondly, an exparte decree is an outcome or a consequence or a result of an exparte proceeding and is based on unilateral plea of the plaintiff. Allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. enables the defendant to contest the claim of the plaintiff. If that is so, it will be unreasonable, illogical and arbitrary for the Court to impose a liability on defendant to pay the suit claim even before adjudication on rival claims takes place and the court decides to decree the suit. However, the Court while allowing an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C., in appropriate cases, order costs of the application including the advocate's fee. 16. In the case at hand also, the ex-parte decree passed against the defendant was set aside; however, by imposing the condition of depositing the entire suit amount. Such a condition is impermissible. 17. In view of the law laid down in Jeypore Sugar Co.Ltd’s case (referred to supra) the order, dated 06.04.2023, imposing the condition directing the defendant to deposit the entire suit amount by way of FDR or directly towards security, is impermissible, because once an ex parte decree is set aside, it ceases to exist. Instead, the trial Court ought to have imposed costs on the defendant. 18. Given the above discussion, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. The condition imposed directing the defendant to deposit the entire suit amount is modified to the extent of directing the defendant to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff within four weeks from today and file a memo before the trial Court to that effect. If the defendant fails to pay the amount to the plaintiff within the time stipulated, the order, dated 06.04.2023 comes into operation. 19. If the plaintiff declines to receive the amount, the defendant is at liberty to deposit the same before the Mandal Legal Services Committee (MLSC) and file a memo to that effect before the trial Court. Since the suit restored is of the year 2019, the trial Court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the same as expeditiously, keeping in view the circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/ 2022, dated 23.11.2022, strictly in accordance with law. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 14.07.2026 IKN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No