BADIMENI POCHAIAH Vs. GATLA AKKAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interesting questions this second appeal gives rise to are:

(2.) In a suit filed by the respondents in this second appeal the defendant-appellants were set ex parte on 5-3-1983 since neither the written statement for the filing of which it was adjourned to that date was filed nor the defendants or their counsel was present on that date when it was called. On 22-3-1983, the defendants having come to know of this order filed I. A. 72 of 1983 under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C., to set aside the said order. The application was pending for over a year and ultimately it was dismissed on 31-l-'84. On 31-l-84 the suit was adjourned to 14-2-84 for the evidence of the plaintiff-respondents. On 14-2-84 the 2nd plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1, Exs. A-l to A-4 were marked and a preliminary for redemption of the suit mortgage was passed by the trial Court.

(3.) The defendant-appellants did not file any appeal or revision against the order D/-31-l-'84 dismissing their application, I.A. 72/83, filed under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. However, they filed an appeal against the ex parte decree passed on 14-2-'84. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal mainly on two grounds, viz., (i) the defendants did not file any appeal against the order D/ - 31 -1 -'84 dismissing their application filed to set aside the ex parte order and (ii)the defendants did not participate in the later proceedings of the suit by filing their written statement, cross-examining P.W. 1, etc., though the suit was pending for about one year later to the date on which they were set ex parte.