- (1.)This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 26.09.2014 in C.M.A.No.5 of 2011 passed by the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda.
(2.)The facts in brief are that the petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.9 of 2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Nalgonda. Respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners with respect to the land in Sy.No.216 of Mada Yedavelli village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District over an extent of Ac.1 - 23 gts., The said suit was decreed ex parte on 28.07.2004. Therefore the petitioners filed I.A.No.246 of 2008 in O.S.No. 9 of 2004, on 28.12.2006, under Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with 151 Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 123 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking setting aside of the ex parte order. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., that the suit summons were not received by them and as such they could not contest the suit and decreeing of the suit ex parte came to their knowledge only on 20.12.2006 and as such the petition is filed seeking to set aside the ex parte decree within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree. The said I.A. was resisted by the respondents -plaintiffs specifically denying the averments that the petitioners have not received any summons from the Court. The Court below after considering the record dismissed the I.A. The Order in I.A.No.246 of 2008 in O.S.No.9 of 2004 is carried in appeal before the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda in C.M.A. No.5 of 2011 and the same also came to be dismissed. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.
(3.)Sri Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners passionately pleads that the petitioners are the original owners of the land, over which the respondents have obtained ex parte decree, having purchased the same through registered sale deeds in 1982, 1989 and 1996 over an extent of total Ac.2 -19 guntas. Merely because the suit was decreed ex parte without service of notice on the deponents, inasmuch as the petitioners are original owners and are in possession of the suit schedule land, the Courts below in refusing to set aside the ex parte decree caused great injury to the rightful owners. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks indulgence of the Court stating that no prejudice as such would be caused if the ex parte decree is set aside and the trial Court is directed to try the suit after taking into consideration of the material and evidence that may be placed by the respective parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners offers to compensate by way of costs to the respondents - plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nahar Enterprises Vs. Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd., and Another .