THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1913 of 2014 Between:
Dated 08th July, 2014 Smt.Nandigam Vijaya Lakshmi And M/s.Shriram Chit Pvt., Ltd., and others …Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheru The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed against order, dated 04.06.2014 in I.A.No.55 of 2014, in O.S.No.381 of 2010, on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
Respondent No.1 filed the above-mentioned suit for recovery of money. The petitioner, who is allegedly the principal borrower, has filed her appearance through her counsel on 02.04.2012. As she failed to file written statement and was not represented by a counsel, she was set ex parte by order, dated 17.08.2012.
Though the present IA was presented on 05.11.2012, as evident from the decretal order, dated 04.06.2014, the same is registered as I.A.No.55 of 2014 and disposed of by the lower Court by the order under revision.
In her affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner stated that due to certain family and health issues she had to rush to USA in the month of May, 2012 without informing the same to her counsel and that after her return from USA on 28.09.2012, she was informed that the counsel did not represent her as he was not left with any instructions and that therefore she was set ex parte in the suit. The petitioner has therefore sought for setting aside the ex parte order. While dismissing I.A.No.55 of 2014, the lower Court has observed that as summons were not served on the petitioner, they were served through the mode of publication and that the IA for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed without filing the delay condonation application. The lower Court further observed that gross negligence is reflected on the conduct of the petitioner in not filing written statement.
At the hearing, Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the certified copy of memo, dated 05.11.2012, filed by the petitioner before the lower Court, wherein it was stated that in spite of requests, the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) did not furnish the documents filed along with the suit, thereby disabling her to file written statement. Interestingly, this aspect was taken note by the lower Court, but it failed to deal with the same.
The petitioner appears to have a legitimate reason for not filing written statement as the copies of the suit documents such as the alleged receipts on which respondent No.1 placed reliance were not supplied to the petitioner. Unless the lower Court has found no merit in the said plea, it cannot ignore the same and find fault with the petitioner for not filing the written statement. Furthermore, the lower Court seems to be labouring under the misconception that for setting aside an order setting a party ex parte, limitation is prescribed. In my opinion, the lower Court has not made proper application of mind and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside and I.A.No.55 of 2014 is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file written statement within two weeks from the date of receipt of the suit documents from the plaintiff. The lower Court shall dispose of the suit within three months from the date of filing of the written statement.
Subject to the above directions, the civil revision petition is allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2691 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th July, 2014
VGB