THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4129 OF 2014 Dated:09-12-2014 Between:
Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi
... PETITIONER
AND
Smt. S. Suguna and four others
. RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4129 OF 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.S No. 1654 of 2013 in the Court of XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents for the relief of cancellation of a sale deed. The respondents received summons and entered appearance. However, they were set ex parte on 14-03-2014 on the ground that the written statement was not filed within time. The respondent filed I.A No. 438 of 2014 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. The trial Court allowed the I.A through docket order dated 07-10-2014. Hence, this revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made an effort to convince this Court that the filing of the affidavit in support of the I.A itself was not proper. Out of curiosity, this Court has gone through the affidavit filed in support of the I.A, the counter filed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the order passed by the trial Court. In a way, it can be said that all the three reflect the fall in standards.
Though the respondents filed affidavit in support of the I.A., at one place it is mentioned that it is a counter affidavit. On her part, the petitioner made some observation in the counter which does not make any sense at all. So far as the Court is concerned, it did not refer at least, in brief to the contents of the affidavit and the counter and proceeded to pass an order, little realizing that on the respondents being set ex parte, valuable rights have accrued to the petitioner and such rights can be taken away only through an order which is in accordance with law.
Be that as it may, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court cannot be found fault with. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
09-12-2014
ks