Telangana High Court
CRP/4016/2009 of Sri Godindan Selvaraj Vs M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 31 December 2009
A . GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4016 OF 2009 DATE:31-12-2009 BETWEEN Govindan Selvaraj …Petitioner AND M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A . GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4016 OF 2009 ORDER:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4016 OF 2009
DATE:31-12-2009
BETWEENGovindan Selvaraj
AND
…Petitioner
M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
…Respondent
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDYCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4016 OF 2009ORDER:
Petitioner-judgment debtor filed this revision assailing theorders of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 6.7.2009dismissing I.A.No.312 of 2009 in O.S.No.132 of 2004 filed forcondoning the delay of 565 days in filing the petition under OrderIX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order, dated 7.5.2007in O.S.No.132 of 2004.
The only reason offered by the petitioner in the affidavit filedin support of the petition is that as the suit summons were not dulyserved on him, he could not attend the Court and that he came to know about passing of ex parte decree only on receipt ofsummons in E.P.No.554 of 2004. He further stated that he wassuffering from contagious disease for a long time and held up atChennai due to bed-ridden. Considering the reasons offered bythe petitioner, the lower Court by the impugned order dismissedthe application holding that though the petitioner stated that he wassuffering from ill-health and was held up at Chennai failed toproduce any document to substantiate his plea.
This Court to give a chance, while ordering notice beforeadmission on 28.8.2008 directed the petitioner to deposit half ofthe decretal amount to the credit of E.P.No.554 of 2008 withinthree weeks. But, now the learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner has not complied with the saidconditional order. The suit itself was filed by the Bharat SancharNigham Limited for recovery of the dues payable by the petitionerin connection with the telephone service provided by it. Itappears that the petitioner has filed the present impugnedapplication only to protract the litigation and to evade his liability. In the absence of explaining any sufficient cause for condoning thedelay, the discretion exercised by the lower Court dismissing theimpugned application does not suffer from any illegality warrantinginterference by this Court.
The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
_______________
A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
DECEMBER 31, 2009Tsr.