HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

C.R.P.No.433 & 904 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:

The respondent herein filed O.S.No.106 of 2018 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, for recovery of money on the strength of a registered mortgage deed.

The petitioner received summons of the suit. However, he did not attend to the Court or appoint an advocate in the matter. Thereupon, the trial Court passed an ex parte preliminary decree on 21.12.2018. Thereafter, the trial Court also passed a final decree on 28.06.2019 for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,80,647/-.

Thereafter, E.P.No.360 of 2019 was filed for execution of the said final decree. At that stage, the petitioner filed applications to set aside the ex parte orders in the preliminary decree and final decree. As there was a delay in filing these applications, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2043 of 2019 to condone the delay of 237 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree dated 21.12.2018 and I.A.No.2042 of 2019 to condone the delay of 75 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte final decree dated 28.06.2019.

The grounds raised in both the applications were that after receipt of summons the petitioner was unable to attend the Court and appoint an advocate as he was busy with his job in Hyderabad; he had subsequently forgotten the date of adjournment and could not take any further steps; and that the copies of the suit summons were misplaced by him in his house.

The trial Court after hearing the petitioner and respondent dismissed these applications on 23.01.2020. Aggrieved by the said orders of dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of these two revision petitions.

Sri N. Harinadh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would suffer grave and irreparable loss and he is not in a position to bear the burden of the decree. He submits that the petitioner had genuinely lost track of the suit due to which he suffered the said decrees. He further submits that the petitioner had already paid about Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent and shutting him out of the suit would cause him to lose the said amount as the amount already paid would not be taken in to account by the executing Court.

Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. V. Sujatha, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the petitioner had in fact appointed an advocate and thereafter did not bother to defend the suit.

Heard Sri N. Harinadh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. V. Sujatha, learned counsel for the respondent.

The reason that the petitioner had forgotten about the case because he was busy with his job, is not sufficient cause to condone the delay. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the trial court on this count.

Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to put forward his claim of repayment of the mortgage deed either in full or in part in E.P.No.360 of 2019 and the Executing Court shall take into account such a claim along with such evidence as may be placed to demonstrate that claim while deciding the E.P. There shall be no order as to costs.

2

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

_________________________

30th December, 2021 Js.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

C.R.P.No.433 & 904 of 2021

30th December, 2021