VAKATI PRABHAKAR REDDY Vs. TENALI MOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent filed OS No. 87 of 1990 against the appellant as 4th defendant and three others including the State of Andhra Pradesh as defendants 1 to 3, for recovery of Rs. 1,98,774/-. Appellant put in appearance through one Mr. D. Jayaprada Rao, advocate in the said suit. Since he did not file his written statement for number of adjournments, he (appellant) was set ex parte on 3-12-1990. He filed IA No. 59 of 1991 under Rule 7 of Order IX CPC to set aside the ex parte order against him. Though the said petition was allowed, and the order setting him ex parte was set aside and several adjournments were granted to file his written statement, since he did not choose to file his written statement till 13-12-1991 and did not even pay the costs imposed against him, and since he was also not present and since the other defendants in the suit had filed their written statements, the Court below posted the suit to 16-12-1991 from 13-12-1991 for framing of issues without formally passing an order setting the appellant ex parte. After framing issues, trial of the suit was taken up. By the judgment dated 27-11-1996 the trial Court while dismissing the suit against defendants 1 to 3, decreed the suit against the appellant for the amount claimed in the suit.

(2.) Alleging that only because his Advocate Mr. Jayaprada Rao informed him that he need not attend Court and that whenever his presence is required he would post a letter, and till he receives a letter from him (the advocate), he (appellant) need not even attend the Court, and since he did not receive any letter from Mr. Jayaprada Rao, he did not attend the hearings of the case and was away in Karnataka State executing contracts and that only after coming to know that Court officials caused a tom-tom in the village regarding attachment of his properties only did he go Court to make enquiries and came to know that Mr. Jayaprada Rao, advocate had passed away, and that the suit was decreed ex parte against him, appellant filed IA No. 374 of 1997 to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him.

(3.) Contending that the decree passed against the appellant is not an ex parte decree, and that petition to set aside ex parte decree is hopelessly barred by time and negligence and laches on his part cannot be made grounds to set aside the decree, respondent opposed the said application.