KANDUKURI PAKKERAMMA ALIAS RADHA Vs. KANDUKURI PYARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff before the learned trial Court has filed this revision under Sec. 115 C.P.C. questioning the correctness of order dtd. 7/9/2017 of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa in I.A.No.2977 of 2016 in O.S.No.397 of 2010.

(2.) Despite notices to respondents, none appeared. From the record that is placed before this Court, it is seen that the present revision petitioner filed O.S.No.397 of 2010 seeking for partition of plaint schedule properties in equal measure and one such share shall be given to plaintiff. The defendants submitted their written statements and issues in the said suit were settled on 1/4/2013 and the matter went for trial. PW.1 gave his evidence in chief and got exhibited his documents on 13/6/2013. However, there was none attending to face cross-examination despite several adjournments and conditional orders, the trial Court instead of closing the evidence of PW.1, chose to dismiss the suit for default on 19/6/2015. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.588 of 2015 to set aside that dismissal order. The respondents therein, who are defendants in the suit, did not choose to file their counters and they were set ex parte. However, during the subsequent phase, since the petitioner in I.A.No.588 of 2015 failed to prosecute the application and since none was appearing for her that petition was dismissed. It seems that subsequently the petitioner once again filed I.A.No.2977 of 2016 in O.S.No.397 of 2010 under Order IX Rule 4 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the order that dismissed the suit for default. It is that application on contest that was dismissed by the learned trial Court by the impugned order, forcing the plaintiff to come up with this revision.

(3.) The papers placed before this Court could show that the petition, counter and the impugned order in I.A.No.2977 of 2016 in O.S.No.397 of 2010. In that petition, it is stated that the suit was pending before learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa and the matter was posted to 8/6/2015 and on that day the Court clerk informed that the suit would be transferred to Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa under notice to her. However, nothing transpired for certain days and thereafter, it came to light that the suit was transferred to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa and there it was dismissed for default. It is stated that the transfer was not made with due notice to parties and application to set aside was also dismissed without informing her about the transfer of the suit. It is in those circumstances, alleging that there is violation of procedure and principles of natural justice, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2977 of 2016. The counter filed by the respondents therein who are defendants in the suit referred to the petition mentioned allegations and denied them as incorrect and stated that it is for the party or his lawyer to vigilantly pursue the litigation and blame cannot be thrown on a clerk of a Court and instead of being present in the Court, she allowed the suit to be dismissed and there are no valid grounds to allow the petition.