THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1818 of 2014 Between:
Faiz Mohd and others And Dated 15th July, 2014 …Petitioners Rizwana Begum and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri B.Shanker Counsel for the respondents: ----
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 28.01.2014, in I.A.No.70 of 2014 in O.S.No.10 of 2013, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.
Respondent No.1 filed the above-mentioned suit for partition and separate possession of the property. While defendant Nos.2, 4, 6, and 7 have entered appearance, the suit was dismissed by the lower Court against the respondents, who are defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5, for not taking steps for service of suit summons. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.70 of 2014 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit. The Court below allowed the said application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 filed this revision petition.
The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that before allowing the said application, no notice was given to his clients.
I do not find any merit in this submission. Admittedly, the suit was dismissed qua defendant Nos.1, 3, and 5 for not taking steps for service of summons. As the said defendants have not entered appearance in the suit, the issue of restoration of suit remained between the Court and respondent No.1/plaintiff. In this view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error to interfere with the order of the lower Court.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2575 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th July, 2014
VGB