The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.145 of 2013
Dated 24.07.2014
Between:
P.Radha Krishna Reddy …Petitioner And Karanam Vasudeva Rao …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.L.V.Ramana Rao Counsel for the respondent: M/s.Avinash Desai The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against Order, dated 14-12-2012, in IA.No.389 of 2012 in OS.No.407 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
The respondents filed the abovementioned suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the schedule property against the petitioner. As the petitioner did not enter appearance, he was set ex parte by Order, dated 08-04-2009, and an ex parte decree was passed on 14-06-2010. The respondents have filed EP.No.76 of 2010 seeking execution of the said decree. The lower Court has issued warrant on 25-03-2012. At that stage, the petitioners filed IA.No.389 of 2012 seeking condonation of delay of 618 days in filing the application for setting aside ex parte decree, dated 14-06-2010. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court by Order, dated 14- 12-2012, which is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.
At the hearing, Mr.Gade Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated that proper address was not mentioned in the summons; that therefore, the same were not served on his client and that the Urdu newspaper viz., Siyasat is not a widely circulated one, as a result of which, the petitioner had no knowledge of the passing of the ex parte decree.
A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in IA.389 of 2012 shows that neither of the aforesaid two grounds has been mentioned therein. Except stating that he did not receive summons in the suit, the petitioner has not pleaded the reason why the same were not received by him. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise any plea, which is not taken in his pleadings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel, interim order, dated 07-02-2013, is vacated and CRPMP.No.6629 of 2013 in/& CRPMP.No.200 of 2013 are disposed of.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 24th July, 2014 LUR