Palepu Narayana Murthy, v. Amballa Mahalakshmi Rao,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.608 of 2016 ORDER:
This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.30-122015 in I.A.No.157 of 2014 in O.S.No.71 of 2009 of the VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Narsapur.
2. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 9 in the said suit, which had been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 against them and others for specific performance of an agreement of sale dt.27-06-2006 and for delivery of possession of the land comprised in the said agreement of sale.
3. Petitioners were set ex parte by the Court below on 18-03-2010 (defendant Nos.2, 4 to 8) and 24-12-2009 (9th defendant). They filed I.A.No.157 of 2014 to set aside these orders.
4.
In the affidavit filed by 1st petitioner on behalf of other petitioners in the said application, the 1st petitioner stated that on receipt of summons, he could not attend the Court due to his employment as Aqua Technician, and later also he was unable to attend the Court as he could
not secure leave. It was also contended that the other petitioners could not attend the Court since they were residing remotely and were in fact house-wives discharging their family duties.
5. Counter-affidavit was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposing this application stating that there are no bonafides on the part of petitioners in prosecuting their case and the reasons given by petitioners cannot be accepted.
6. By order dt.30-12-2015, the Court below dismissed the said application observing that the petitioners as well as their counsel were absent and noting that the suit is of the year 2009, almost 6 years old, and the application I.A.No.157 of 2014 was filed on 25-11-2014. It also noticed that the affidavit of P.W.1 was also filed on 27-102014 and the main case was coming for crossexamination of P.W.1.
7. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.
8. Heard Sri Rama Mohan Palanki, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
9.
Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the counsel for petitioners could not be present when
I.A.No.157 of 2014 was taken up by the Court below since he was an Office Bearer of Narsapur Bar Association and Christmas was being celebrated in the said Association at the time when I.A.No.157 of 2014 was taken up by the Court below.
10. This contention cannot be accepted because even if the counsel for petitioners was an Office Bearer of the Advocates Association of Narsapur, his first duty is to attend to the cases in which he has filed vakalat and he cannot participate in the Christmas celebrations ignoring the responsibility which he has undertaken by filing vakalat on behalf of petitioners in this suit.
11. That apart, petitioners were set ex parte on 24-122009 and 18-03-2010 and I.A.No.157 of 2014 was filed to set aside those orders on 25-11-2014, almost five years later. It is difficult to believe that all the 7 petitioners did not find time in this intervening 5 years period to approach the Court for setting aside the orders passed against them. Even if the 1st petitioner was employed and could not get leave, the other petitioners, either by themselves or through their family members, could have taken steps to file applications to set aside the orders setting them ex parte. It is difficult to believe that even the
1st petitioner could not get leave from his job for 5 years. I am of the opinion that the petitioners have acted with gross negligence in defending their rights in the suit and they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own negligence.
12. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 15-07-2016 Vsv