Shaik KabreVs Bakki Surender

This civil revision petition is filed against the orders dated 08.08.2007 in I.A.No.427 of 2006 in I.A.No.628 of 2005 in O.S.No.1076 of 2001 on the file of I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

The grounds raised in the revision petition are that the trial Court ought to have seen that the non-representation of matter during the call work was neither deliberate nor wanton and that the trial Court has erred in holding that the counsel of petitioner engaged in another Court is not at all a ground for restoring the I.A. which was filed to set aside the ex parte decree. The further ground raised is that the trial Court ought to have considered that the petitioner is deaf and dumb person and he could not appear in person before the Court.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

The record reveals that an ex parte decree was passed in the suit on 30.04.2004. I.A.No.628 of 2005 was filed to set aside the said ex parte decree. It is the finding of the trial Court that right from the beginning, the revision petitioner has not evinced any interest in contesting the suit inspite of granting several opportunities and that the petitioner has successfully dragged on the matter for about 2½ years and when he was unable to get the adjournments, he remained ex parte and thereafter, he started filing petitions for setting aside the said orders. It is also the finding of the trial Court that petitioner’s counsel being engaged before another Court is not a ground for setting aside the ex parte order or dismissal of the petition for non-representation. Inspite of the matter being posted on costs, the petitioner did not make his presence before the Court, for which, he was set ex parte and later, an ex parte decree was passed. I.A.No.628 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree, but he did not evince any interest and the said petition was also dismissed for default, for which, the petitioner again filed I.A.No.427 of 2006 to set aside the order, which was dismissed for default in the month of April, 2007 and did not urge upon the matter till August, 2007. On 08.08.2007, the Court dismissed the I.A. with exemplary costs, by recording the attitude of the petitioner.

The suit is of the year 2001. This revision petition is filed in the year 2008 and no stay is granted in this revision. On 20.02.2008, interim stay was granted on condition of petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.1 Lakh within three weeks and default clause was also incorporated that the stay shall stand vacated and it shall be open for the respondent to go ahead with the final decree proceedings. On 19.03.2008, a petition was filed to extend the time for depositing the amount and time was extended by one week. The docket order of this Court dated 30.09.2010 disclose that the learned counsel for petitioner stated that the petitioner died and steps were to be taken. However, there is no record before this Court as to taking of any steps by the counsel for petitioner to bring on record the legal representatives of petitioner. Therefore, it can be construed that since 2010, the matter is being adjourned from time to time and no steps are taken to bring the legal representatives of petitioner on record. Moreover, counsel for the revision petitioner reported that he has no instructions in the matter and the legal representatives of the petitioner are not in touch with him and requested to pass orders on merits.

On perusal of the e-Courts case status, it is found that no original suits of the year 2001 are pending on the file of Senior Civil Judges’ Courts at Warangal. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this revision petition.

This revision petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.