THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.932 of 2014 Between: Smt.G.Suryakala And Dated 04th September, 2014 …Petitioner B.Sathi Reddy and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mohd.Mumtaz Pasha Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Mohd.Asifuddin for Sri M.Rama Rao The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed against order, dated 07.02.2014, in I.A.No.6 of 2011 in O.S.No.342 of 2004, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
By the above-mentioned order, the lower Court has condoned the delay of 1164 days in filing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree by respondent No.1.
Sri Mohd.Mumtaz Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in allowing the application for condoning huge delay without assigning proper reasons.
Sri Mohd.Asifuddin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, raised an objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner has received the costs of Rs.500/- imposed while condoning the delay and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to question a part of the order of the lower Court, while accepting that part of the order which pertains to imposition of costs.
There is no dispute about the legal position that if costs are received by a party or his counsel, he cannot question the order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously disputed receipt of costs.
It is the case of respondent No.1 that on 17.02.2014, the junior counsel representing him has deposited the costs before the District Legal Services Authority and that on 28.02.2014, when the case was taken up by the lower Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that costs were not paid and that immediately respondent No.1 has handed over the sum of Rs.500/- and the junior counsel in turn has paid the costs to the learned counsel for the petitioner and that memo to that effect was filed before the lower Court, which was endorsed by the lower Court on 28.02.2014.
The petitioner herself has filed a certified copy of docket order, dated 28.02.2014, wherein the lower Court has endorsed as under:
“Costs paid. Memo filed. Petition is allowed.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed the contents of this docket order. I am afraid, I cannot decide this dispute at this stage unless the petitioner has first moved the lower Court for re-calling the docket order and an order on such application is passed by the lower Court. So long as the docket order, dated 28.02.2014, stands the petitioner is disabled from questioning the order, dated 07.02.2014, passed in I.A.No.6 of 2011.
In the above view of the matter, the civil revision petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the lower Court with appropriate application for re-calling the above-mentioned docket order, dated 28.02.2014, and file a fresh CRP in the event he succeeds in his endeavour.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, interim order, dated 15.04.2014, shall stand vacated and C.R.P.M.P.Nos.1287 and 3586 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th September, 2014
VGB