when the appeal was filed instead of filing set aside exparte decree for not filing written statement, the court must see the reasons on which grounds, the lower court granted decree,instead of dismissing the appeal as the reasons not furnished for non-fling writtenstatement, demands remand for afresh consideration



SECOND APPEAL No.1402 of 2011






            Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.53 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ramachandrapuram are the appellants. The suit was the one filed for declaration that the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the appellants herein were not valid.  The suit was decreed ex parte as the appellants have not filed any written statement.  As against that, A.S.No.20 of 1997 was preferred in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram and the lower appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal.  Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is filed and the following substantial question of law has been framed:


(a)      Whether the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal on the ground that the defendants have not availed the remedy under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and also not explained their non-appearance is tenable?



            Evidently, a reading of the judgment of the lower appellate Court clearly goes to show that after considering the conduct of the appellants for not availing the remedy under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., and as no explanation was given in the grounds of appeal for their non appearance, the appeal was dismissed.  It is to be noted that the remedy under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and right to prefer an appeal against an ex parte decree are two independent remedies.  The considerations for setting aside an ex parte decree are quite different when the judgment is attacked in appeal on substantial questions. Even if the defendants have not put in their appearance or filed the written statement, still, the lower appellate Court has to consider whether from the material available and taking into consideration the grounds that are raised by the appellants, the decree is sustainable or not.  There cannot be any dispute about the settled proposition of law, but, however, the lower appellate Court erred in not considering the merits of the case independently and dismissing the appeal only on the ground of non-explanation for nonappearance before the trial Court and not availing the remedy under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.

 Therefore, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court for consideration of the appeal on merits with reference to the grounds raised by the appellants as to the tenability of the decree passed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal before the end of December, 2012.  The parties to bear their own costs.

Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is also disposed of.



                                                                 N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J






Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.