Telangana High Court
CMA/257/2021 of Yelle Laxmi Narayana Vs Annaram Lavanya on 12 December 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO C.M.A.No:257 OF 2021 Appeal under Order 43 Rule 10 CPC aggrieved by the order dated 09-03-2021 passed in 1.A.No.359 of
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
C.M.A.No:257 OF 2021
Appeal under Order 43 Rule 10 CPC aggrieved by the order dated 09-03-2021
passed in 1.A.No.359 of 2019 in O.S.No.50 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the lX
Additional District Judge at Sircilla.
Between:
Yelle Laxmi Narayana, S/o. Rajaiah, Age 49 years, Occ: It,lunicipal Counselor, R/o. H.No.7-3-'1 '16, Subhashnagar locality Sircilla Town and lvlandal Rajanna Sircilla Drstrict.
, ..PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF
AND
Annaram Lavanya, Wo. Srinivas, Age.26 years, Occ: Municipal Counselor 1Sth Ward, R/o. Netaji Nagar, Sircilla Town and Mandal Rajanna Sircilla District.
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V. Ram Mohan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri R. Ramanjaneyulu for Sri T. Surya Satish The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI )LANGANA AT
IITDERABAI)
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHAT APATHI RAO
C.M.A. No.257 of 2O2L
Dt.L2.L2.2025
Between:
Yelle Laxmi Narayana
Appellant
And
Annaram Lavanya
Re spondent
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.
JUDGMENT:
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal ras been filed challenging the order, dt.09.O3.2O21, passed i I IA.No.359 of 2Ol9 in OS.No.SO of 2018 filed under Order IX ?ule 9 CPC on the fi1e of the IX Additional District Judge at Sircilla, to set aside the dismissal of the suit, dt.Ll.).2.2O19.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, a suit n OS.No.SO of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional District Jtclge at Sircilla was frled by the appellant/plaintiff seeking; damages for defamation against the respondent/defendant rnd pleadings were compiete and the suit was being adjournt:, . from time to time for trial. That on 11.72.20 19, when the sui' "vas posted for the evidence of the appellant/plaintiff, he was called absent and the counsel for defendant were present and again the case was called at 2.00 pm., there was neither representation of the appellant/piaintiff nor any affidavits in lieu of examination was fiIed, though issues were framed as early as on 09.08.2017 and the suit was posted for evidence of appellant/plaintiff. Since there was no representation by the appellant/plaintiff, the trial Court dismissed the suit under Order IX Rule 8 of CPC.
3. As against the said order, the appellant had filed the underlying application uide IA.No.359 of 2019 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC seeking to set aside the dismissal order, dt.ll.l2.2ol9 and to restore the suit to the file of the Court.
4. The trial Court upon considering the underlying application and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/defendant, having not satisfied with the grounds mentioned in the affrdavit filed in support of the said application, dismissed the said application on 09.03.2021, and against the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ) frled by the appellant/plaintiff.
/ J
5. I have heard, Sri V.Ram Mohan Reddy learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.Ramanjane5rulu, Iearnt t counsel for the respondent, given earnest consideration to -heir respective submissions and perused the material on recoi(
6. As seen from the order of the IX Additior: I District Judge at Sircilla, it appears that the appellant/plainti't having filed the suit in 2018, has been taking time to lead evi,i :nce in the suit for one reason or other without commencing I -ial and on the date when the suit was posted, the appellzL rt/plaintiff was called absent and there was no representation, hence the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution 7 . Though the trial Court has obse - 'ed that the appellant/plaintiff has been dragging the case ir tentionally and the reasons stated by the appellant that he ui s not well and could not appear seems to be not a proper rrr son for setting aside the dismissal order, the trial Court ougF t to have seen that there was no delay in filing the application rnder Order IX Rule 9 CPC and mere technica-lities should rot defeat the legitimate claim of the party and to put an end r I the lis a full- fledged trial is necessary, and therefore, the triat Court ought to have given one last opportunity to the appellant/plaintiff to decide the suit on merits.
8. In such view of the matter, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, and the order dt.O9.O3.2O2l passed in IA.No.359 of 2Ol9 in OS.No.SO of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge at Sircilla as well as the order dt. 1L.12.2O19 passed in the said suit OS.No.5O of 20 18 are both set aside and the suit is restored to the file of the trial Court, subject to the appellant/plaintiff paying costs of Rs.5,OO0/- (Rupees Five thousand) to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority within a period two weeks from today. Upon proof of such payment being filed before the trial Court, the trial Court shall restore the suit to its frle by fixing the next date of hearing as 2I.O1.2026, on which date, the appellant/plaintiff shall positively present before the trial Court and frle affrdavit in lieu of his chief-examination and proceed with trial. It is made I clear that failure to adduce evidence or prosecute the case at all stages by the appellant, the trial Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous pt titions, if any, pending shall stand closed. lsal- x. sHYLESHT r' ,'\':]-:ar^" s$r,o* oFFrcER ,[ o T //TRUE COPY// '1 The lX Additional District Judge at Sircilla.
2. One CC to Srr V Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate [OP[Jti
3. One CC to Sri T Surya Satish, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies kl
HIGH COURT DATED:1 211212025
ORDER
CMA.No.257 ot 2021 ALLOWING THE CMA 1: .._1- -. - ..r._.. r-:.. ":::. -..-.-.- j-- v/. oo 0 5 "iI'tr:r' * a \ ...,, \\ eb' i b I ,), b