Telangana High Court
CRP/2706/2023 of Smt. M. Sarojini (DIED) Vs Shaik Nayeem Miyan on 5 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IVONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2706 OF 2023 Petition under Arl.icle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
IVONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2706 OF 2023
Petition under Arl.icle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 201OG12023 in lA No. 32of 2023 in l.A No. 143of 2021 in O.S No 866 of 2019 on the file of the Vl Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Vl Addl. I\4etropolitan ttrlagistrate, Ranga Reddy at LB Nagar.
Between:
1. Smt. t\il. Sarojini (DIED), (died as per LRS).
2. lvluktha Anjaiah, S/o. Late Pentaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, Rio. H. No. 3-6-505, Street no.6, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.
3. K. Vara Laxmi @ Anjamma, D/o. Late lvl. Pentaiah, Wo. K. Venkataiah, aged 55 Years, Occ. Housewrfe, R/o. H. No. 12-11-1438, Boudja Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.
4 A. Lalitha, D/o. Late M. Pentaiah, Wo. A Prasad Rao, aged 54 years, Occ.
Housewife, R/o H No. 14 2-337 /1311 , Goshamahal, Hyderabad -500 012.
5. IVI. Padma, Wo. Late lttl. Raju, aged 53 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No.3- 6-505, Street no. 6, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.
6. Ttrl. Vanishree, Wo. Late lvl. Narsingh Rao, aged 47 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H No. 17-2-1165, Rain Bazar, Hyderabad.
7. [Vl. Krishna Mohan, S/o. Late [VI. Ralu, aged 34 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H
No. 3- 6 -505, Street no. 6, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.
8. M. Kranthi Kumar, S/o. Late [\4. Raju, aged 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.
No.3-6-505, Street no. 6, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.
9. I\,4. Nagaraju, S/o Late [vl. Raju, aged 31 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.3- 6-505, Street no. 6, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.
10. t\/. Shiva, S/o Late M. Narsingh Rao, aged 28 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.
No. 17-2-1165, Rain Bazar, Hyderabad
11. M. lVlaruthi Kumar, S/o Late IVl. Narsingh Rao, aged 25 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H No. 17-2-1165, Rain Bazar, Hyderabad.
12.G. Reena, D/o. Late M. Narsingh Rao, W/o G. Bhaskar Rao, aged 30 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No.8-2-68/4-5, Karmanghat, Hyderabad.
13 M. Tina, G. Reena, D/o Late lVl.Narsingh Rao, Wo Rahul. aged 28 years, Oc:. Housewif<:, Rio H. No. 3-6-505, Street No.6, l-limayath Nagar, Hyderabad.
14. M Ravi Kumari Wo. lV Anajaiah, aged 60 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.
3-6-505, Street No 6, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad
..PETITIONERS
AND
Shaik Nayeem l,4iyan, S/o. Shark Dada fVliyan Aged about 50 years, Occ.
Business, R/o. H.No. 20 7-57711, lqbal Daula kr Devdi, Fathe Darwaza, Hyclerabad, Rep, by GPA Holder Syed. Daweed Hussaini S/o Late Syed Chand Hussaini Aged about. 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. ZO-3 B2Ol2, Shah Gunj, Hyderabad .RESPONDENT
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in the suit vide O.S No 866 of 2019 on the file of the Vl Addl.
Junior Ctvil Judge cum-',./l Addl. t\/etropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at LB Nagar and pass Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the following : Sri. G Kalyan Chakravarthy : Sri. Mullangi Rami Reddy
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.
: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CwIL REVISION PETITION No.27O6 of 20123 CNR.No.HBHCO lO57 6462o26 DATE: O5.1O.2O26 BETWEEN: M. Sarojini (died as per LRs) and others petrtroners And Shaik nayeem Miyan .. ..Respondent
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is hled challenging the order dated 20.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.32 of 2023 and I.A.No. 143 of 2027 in O.S.No.866 of 2019 by the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L. B. Nagar.
SKS'J C.R.P.No.2706 of 2O23
2. I.A.No.143 ol 2O2l was filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 7'CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order passed aga.inst him/her application was dismissed for default on 30 1 I'2O22' as the petitioners faiied to appear before the trial Court and pursue the said application. Thereafter, the petitioners fi1ed I A'No'32 of 2023 seekirrg restoration of I A No. 143 of 2O2l '
3. Tht: trial Court, by the impugned order datecl 20 06'2023' clismissccl t.A.No.32 of 2023 holding that the said application was not naintainable and that the petitione rs ought to approach tee aPPellate forum. in O.S.No.866 of 2019. The said 4, Heard Sri G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Mullangi Ramr Rt:d C1', Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the responde nr
5. Leilr-red , counsel for the revision petitroners submitted that I.A.Nc.32 of 2023 is not a second application under Order IX Rule 7 tlPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order passed in O.S.No.86(r of 2019. - lt rs only an appliczLtion seeking restoration of LA.No.143 ol 2021, which had earlier been
SKS'J C.R.P.No.2706 of 2O23 dismissedfordefault.Therefore,thetrialCourterredinholding that the application was not maintainable and that the remedy ofthepetitionerswastoapproachtheappellateCourt,He further submitted that the petitioners has a right to contest the amendment application and to h1e a counter thereto' but the trial Court did not permit the petitioners to do so on the ground that the petitioners had already been set ex parte in O S No'866 of 2Ol9 It is contended that uniess I'A'No' i 43 of 2O2l is restored and considered' the petitioners would be seriously prejudiced in defending the suit' Therefore' he prayed that the Civil Revision Petition be allowed and the matter be remitted to the trial Court for consideration of I'A'No 32 of 2023 on merits'
6. On the other hand' learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings before the trial Court' Though the petitioners filed i.A.No.l43of2o2l,shefailedtoappearbeforethetrialCourt and pursue the said application' resulting in its dismissal for default on 30'1 l '2022 Thereafter' I A'No'32 ol 2023 was filed after a considerable delay and without filing any application seeking condonation of delay Even in I A No 32 of 2023' lh,e petitioners failed to appear before the triai Court on the date of sKs,J
hearing. 11- is further submitted that the conduct of the petitioners u,ou1d show that she is not interested in prosecuting the proceedings and is only attempting to delay the ciisposal of th,: spi1. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Pe [ition. 7 . In the light of the submissions made by both the learned co':nsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, the poinl that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing LA.No.32 of 2023 on the ground that the samr: was not maintainable and that the petitionr:rs has to avrril the remecly before the appellate Court.
8. A perusal of the record would disclose that I.A.No.143 of 2O 2 1 was filed by the petitioners under Order IX Ru le 7 CPC seeking 1.o set aside the ex parte order passed against her in O.S.No.866 of 2019. The said application was subsequently dismissed for clefault. I.A.No.32 of 2023 was thereafter hled for restoratic,n ol' I.A.No. 143 of 2021.
9. Thr:refore , I.A.No.32 of 2023 cannot be constr-red as a second application seeking to set aside the ex parte or<ler under Or<1er IX Rule 7 CPC. The relief sought in I.A.No.32 of 2023 is sxs,J C.R-P.xo.2706 of2023 only for restoration of the earlier application, i.e., I.A.No.143 of 2O2l , which, was dismissed for default. The trial Court, therefore, ought to have considered the application in that proper perspective and examined whether the petitioners had shown sufficient grounds for restoration of I.A.No. 143 of 2021.
10. The observation of the trial Court that the application is not maintainable and that the petitioners has to approach the appellate Court does not appear to be proper, particularly when the petitioners is not seeking, by way of I.A.No.32 of 2023, a fresh order under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, but is seeking restoration of the earlier application which was dismissed for default. The question whether the petitioners has shown sufficient cause for her non-appearance and whether the de1ay, if any, in seeking restoration is properly explained are matters which have to be considered by the trial Court on their own merits.
11. It is also relevant to note that the respondent has raised several objections with regard to the conduct of the petitioners, including the alleged delay in hling I.A.No.32 of 2023 and the failure of the petitioners to appear before the trial Court. Those objections cannot, by themselves, render the application for
SKS,J C.R.P.No,2706 of 2023 restoration norr-maintainable. The same are matters u'hich may be considered by the trial Court while deciding I.A.No.32 of 2023 tn accordance with 1aw.
12. In the c:rcumstances, this Court is of the viell' that the triirl Court conrmitted an error in dismissing I.A.No.32 of 2023 at the thresholC on the ground of maintainability and relegating tho petitioners to the appellate remedy. The application requires consideration on its own merits after affording rcasonable opportunity 1o both sides. 13 Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The orcier dated 20.06.2023 passed by the learned VI Additional Ju:rior Civil Jr-Ldge-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L.Fi. Nagar, in LA.No.32 of 2023 in O.S.No.866 of 2019 is hereby set aside. Ther mattcr is remitted to the trial Court for fresh corrsrderation r>f I.A.No.32 of 2023 on merits, after affording reasonab [e op portunit-v of hearing to both sides and in accordancc u ith law'.
14. The trizl Court shall decide I.A.No.32 of 2023 uninfluenccd b-". anv of the observations made by this Court in the presenL or<ler. It is made clear that this Court has not
To, sxs,J C.R-P.ro,2706 of 2O23 expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made in I.A.No.32 of 2023, including the alleged delay or the reasons for the non-appearailce of the petitioners, and ali such aspects are left open for consideration by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
1. The Vl Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Vl Addl. l/etropolitan [\,4agistrate, Ranga Reddy at LB Nagar 2 One CC to SRl. G KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. IVIULLANG| RAI\ilt REDDY Advocare tOpUCl 4 Two CD Copies TPK/GNK @
HIGH COURT DATED: 05t10t2026 tl E STATA: (
--l $8, s[i 2[6 t )J o /
ORDER
CRP.No.2706 of 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED \ G t o