YELKA RAM REDDY Vs. KANCHARLA INDIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed O.S. No.51 of 1996 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet for the relief of declaration and possession of the suit schedule property against the respondents. The respondents were served with notice and engaged Advocate. However, they did not file written statement for a very long time. After giving several opportunities, the Trial Court set them ex parte and passed an ex parte judgment and decree on 24.8.2001.

(2.) The respondents filed LA. No.52 of 2002 under Order DC Rule 13 to set aside the ex parte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A., it has stated that the second respondent has been suffering with the formation of stones in the kidneys and thereby he could not contact the Advocate. It is stated that the 1st respondent being his 2004(4) FR-F-24 wife was also busy in attending to him and the omission to appear before the Court on the relevant date was neither wilful nor wanton. The affidavit also discloses that they have filed written statement along with LA.

(3.) The petitioners resisted the application of the respondents, it was stated that even if the contention that the 2nd respondent was suffering from any ailment is true, that did not prevent the 1st respondent from filing the written statement and they have been dragging on the matter on one pretext or the other. The Trial Court dismissed the LA. through its order dated 17.8.2002. Thereupon the respondents filed C.M.A. No. 12 of 2003 in the Court of H Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. Through its order dated 20.1.2004, the lower appellate Court allowed the C.M.A., set aside the order in LA. No.52 of 2002 as well as ex parte decree in O.S. No.51 of 1996 on condition that the respondents pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards costs and file written statement within a period of one month. The petitioners assail the order in C.M.A. No. 12 of 2003.