R. Y. VENKATESH REDDY Vs. R. Y. PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned order dtd. 12/1/2023 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.31/2010 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, whereby the said petition filed by the appellant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking setting aside of the exparte judgment and decree dtd. 9/9/2010 passed in O.S.No.607/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, was rejected by the Trial Court.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondent No.1-caveator and perused the material on record. In the order proposed, notice to remaining respondents is dispensed with.

(3.) The material on record discloses respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.607/2009 for partition and separate possession of alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. In the said suit, the appellant was arrayed as defendant No.4 and the remaining respondents were arrayed as the remaining defendants. Insofar as the appellant- defendant No.4 was concerned, he was placed exparte by the Trial Court in the suit on the ground that summons was refused by him. In this context, it is the specific contention of the appellant that summons were actually never served upon the appellant and as such, the question of the appellant refusing service of summons upon him did not arise in the facts of the instant case. In view of the appellant as well as the other defendants having been placed exparte and not contesting the suit, the Trial court proceeded to pass the judgment and decree dtd. 9/9/2010 decreeing the suit in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff. Subsequently, the appellant- defendant No.4 filed the instant Miscellaneous Petition No.31/2010 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking setting aside of the exparte judgment and decree insofar as the appellant was concerned. The said petition having been opposed by respondent No.1-plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the said Miscellaneous Petition, aggrieved by which the appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.