← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRP/3761/2015dismissed

Kurra Ramamohan Rao v. Kurra Bharathi

2015-09-11C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Between:

Kurra Ramamohana Rao

...Petitioner

and Kurra Bharathi and others

...Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 11.09.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

DATE: 11.09.2015 Between:

Kurra Ramamohana Rao

...Petitioner

and Kurra Bharathi and others

...Respondents

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : NONE APPEARS

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 21.08.2015 in I.A.No.389 of 2009 in O.S.No.652 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Respondents 1 to 4 filed the above-mentioned suit for partition and separate possession. After filing the written statement, the petitioner and respondent No.5 have failed to participate in the suit proceedings. In view of the same, they were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 16.10.2008. They filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. As there was a delay of 265 days in filing the application, they have filed I.A.No.389 of 2009 for condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. By the order under revision, the lower Court has dismissed the said application.

A perusal of the record shows that the only reason given by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condoning the delay was that the advocate's clerk suffered heart attack in September, 2008 and he was bedridden, as a result of which, they were not informed about posting of the suit. Except the ipse dixit of the petitioners, no medical evidence is filed in support of the plea that advocate's clerk has suffered heart attack. Even otherwise, the petitioners being defendants are expected to be diligent in prosecuting their case. The petitioners have miserably failed to show that they have shown any diligence whatsoever in contesting the suit and in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of Civil Revision Petition, CRP.MP.No.5046 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th SEPTEMBER, 2015.

kvni