THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2054 of 2014 Date: 10-07-2014 Between :-
1. A.Sanjeeva Reddy and others.
… Petitioners.
And
1. Battala Parandhamaiah and another.
… Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner s : Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy Counsel for respondents : --
This Court made the following :-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2054 of 2014 ORDER:
This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.16-04- 2014 in I.A.No.728 of 2013 in O.S.No.58 of 2008 of the District Judge, Anantapur.
2. The petitioners are defendants in the above suit, which was filed by respondents for specific performance of an agreement of sale dt.11-01-2006 executed by petitioners in favour of respondents. Summons in the suit were served on petitioners. According to the petitioners, they engaged 2 advocates one Sri D.Pakkera Reddy from Anantapur and Sri Sree Ramulu from Dharmavaram. The petitioners did not file written statements. They were set exparte and exparte decree was passed on 17-09-2009.
3. Almost 3½ years thereafter, they filed I.A.No.728 of 2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 to condone the delay of 1252 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and also another application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the said exparte decree.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.728 of 2013, they stated that on account of non-communication of the date of adjournments in the suit by the above Advocates, they could not appear before the Court and file written statement. They also pleaded that they had suspected the hand of respondents in non- communication of the date of adjournments. They claimed that they had a good defence in the suit and prayed for condonation of delay of 1252 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.
5. Counter affidavit was filed by respondents opposing the condonation of delay. It is contended in the counter affidavit filed by respondents that it was the duty of petitioners to know about the stage of the case and non-communication of date of adjournments from the Advocate is not a ground to set side an exparte decree. They denied that they had any role in the non- communication of the date of adjournments to petitioners. They contended that the petitioners were negligent in prosecuting the case and the delay in filing this application is intentional and is not liable to be condoned.
6. By order dt.16-04-2014, the trial Court dismissed the application. It held that it was the duty of petitioners to approach their counsel and to know about the date of adjournments and the contention of petitioners that the counsel did not inform them about the dates of adjournment cannot be accepted. It also noticed that the petitioners had refused to receive notices in the Execution Petition filed by respondents on 02-03-2013 and thereafter filed the present application.
7. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners at the state of admission.
9. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that the Court below erred in holding that the petitioners were responsible for knowing the dates of adjournment and it was their duty to contact their counsel. He contended that duty lies on the Advocates to inform the parties about the dates of adjournment and as such, non-communication of the same would be sufficient cause for condonation of delay in seeking to set aside the exparte decree.
10. I have noted the above submissions.
11. The petitioners are 5 in number and they reside in the same Anantapur district where the suit O.S.No.58 of 2008 was filed before the Principal District Judge, Anantapur. The petitioners did not deny about the receipt of summons in the suit. They admit that they have engaged counsel to represent them in the suit. They however blame the counsel for not informing them about the dates of adjournment. In my opinion, it is for the parties to contact the Advocate and enquire about the proceedings in the suit and the parties cannot throw blame on the Advocate and allege that the Advocate did not inform them about the dates of adjournment. It is not the case of the 5 petitioners that during the period the suit was pending from 30-07-2008 to 17-09-2009 or thereafter before filing of the I.A, any of them had tried to contact their advocates either in person or by post or by telephone and that the Advocates had declined to communicate with them. It is not as if the petitioners are staying far away from the place where the case is pending. All the 5 petitioners are male persons and they are expected to show some interest as to how the litigation in which they are made parties is defended. Nothing prevented them from going to Anantapur and enquiring about the suit proceedings. It is clear that they have adopted a negligent approach and are conveniently blaming their advocates. The explanation given by petitioners does not appear to be bonafide.
12. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. In the circumstances without costs.
13. Miscellaneous applications pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 10-07-2014 vsv