Telangana High Court
Shri A. Appa Rao vs Smt. Varinder Kaur on 23 July, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1947 & 1949 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1947 and 1949 of 2023 are
directed against the common order, dated 25.04.2023, passed by
the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad
in I.A.Nos.637 & 638 of 2023 in OS.No.87 of 2017, respectively.
2. By the impugned common order, IA.Nos.637 and 638 of
2023 filed by defendant No.4 to reopen the suit, and to set aside the
order dated 17.04.2019 and to receive the written statement were
allowed by the trial Court.
3. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions
is interconnected and the result is interdependent, both the
Revision Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by
common order.
4. The revision petitioners herein are plaintiffs and respondent
Nos.1 to 6 are defendant Nos.4, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, respectively, in the
suit before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties
will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
5. Heard Sri G.Arun, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners, Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned counsel for
2
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023
respondent No.1 and Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
6. Concisely stated, the facts of the case relevant for
adjudication for the present Revision Petitions are that the plaintiffs
filed suit in OS.No.87 of 2017 for partition and permanent
injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the
defendants. The defendants entered appearance and engaged
counsels, however, some of the defendants failed to file their
written statements, hence, the right of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to
file written statement was forfeited by the trial Court vide order
dated 17.04.2019. Later, the trial of the suit was proceeded with
and P.W-1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs; that P.W-1
was also cross-examined by learned counsel for defendant No.4;
that on completion of plaintiffs’ side evidence, when the matter
was being posted for defendants’ side evidence, the trial Court
taking note of the fact that the right of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 for
filing written statement was forfeited, posted the suit to 30.01.2023
for evidence of defendant No.3; that on the said date, defendant
No.3 reported no evidence and hence, the matter was posted to
3
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023
07.02.2023 for arguments, on which date, defendant No.4 filed the
aforesaid two applications, i.e., IA.Nos.637 and 638 of 2023.
7. The plaintiffs filed counters resisting both applications.
8. The trial Court, on hearing learned counsel for both the
parties, vide impugned common order dated 25.04.2023 allowed
the said applications on costs with observations that party cannot
be penalized for the mistake or omission on the part of his/her
counsel; that the time limit for filing written statement is not
mandatory, but only directory; that defendant No.4 has shown
sufficient reason and exceptional circumstances are made out for
non-filing of the written statement in time. Questioning the said
common order, the present Revisions are filed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that
on 23.12.2022, P.W-1 was cross-examined on behalf of defendant
No.4 and on the same day, the trial Court having observed that the
right of defendant No.4 to file written statement was forfeited on
17.04.2019, posted the suit for evidence of defendant No.3, who
filed written statement, however, on 30.01.2023, defendant No.3
reported no evidence and hence, the suit was posted to 07.02.2023
for arguments. At that stage, i.e., at the fag end of the suit,
4
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023
defendant No.4 came up with the present applications by blaming
her earlier counsel for laches and default in filing written statement
and therefore, the reasons put forth by defendant No.4 for non-
filing of the written statement in time are not plausible and cannot
be accepted.
10. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that
defendant No.4 engaged a new counsel who cross-examined the
witness/es who were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and even
at that stage, defendant No.4 did not take steps to file written
statement and the aforesaid applications were filed only when the
suit was posted for arguments. Learned counsel further submitted
that defendant No.4 except stating that she is a lay woman and has
no knowledge of legal proceedings, has not shown plausible reason
for non-filing of the written statement in time, however, the trial
Court without properly appreciating the above facts and clear
negligence and laches on the part of defendant No.4 allowed the
applications on erroneous observations that defendant No.4 has
shown sufficient reason and has made out exceptional
circumstances for non-filing of the written statement in time.
5
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023
Learned counsel, therefore, prayed to allow the Revisions by
setting aside the impugned common order.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.4
submitted that defendant No.4 has engaged an advocate who failed
to file written statement within the prescribed period and hence, her
right to file written statement was forfeited, for no fault or laches
on the part of defendant No.4. He further submitted that defendant
No.4 being a lay woman had no knowledge of legal proceedings
and that non-filing of written statement has came to light only on
23.12.2022 when the evidence on behalf of plaintiffs was closed
and that immediately, defendant No.4 filed the aforesaid two
application along with the written statement to show her bona
fides. By contending thus, learned counsel submitted that the trial
Court has rightly allowed the applications by taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the
bona fides of defendant No.4 and hence, these Revisions being
devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed.
12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 relied upon the following judgments:-
6
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023(1) Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel 1
(2) K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan2
(3) PIC Departmentals Pvt Ltd Vs. Sreeleathers Pvt Ltd 3
(4) Bhagwan Swaroop Vs. Mool Chand 4
(5) Tetengu Rautia Vs. Hagru Rautia 5
(7) S.Senthil Kumar Vs. Suseela 7
(9) Bharat Karla Vs. Raj Kishan Chabra 9
13. In Garment Craft’s case (1st cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that the High Court while exercising the supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not
act as a Court of First Appeal to re-appreciate, re-weigh the
evidence or facts, and that the power under Article 227 has to be
exercised sparingly in appropriate cases.
1
(2022) 4 SCC 181
2
2025 SCC Online SC 985
3
2024 SCC Online SC 4082
4
(1983) 2 SCC 132
5
2006 SCC Online Ori 84
6
(1981) 2 SCC 788
7
2021 1 LW 829
8
(2005) 4 SCC 480
9
2022 SCC Online SC 613
7
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023
14. In K.Valarmathi’s case (2nd cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that the power under Article 227 of Constitution of
India is supervisory and the same cannot be invoked to usurp the
original jurisdiction of the Court which it seeks to supervise.
15. In PIC Departmentals Pvt Ltd‘s case (3rd cited supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court has condoned the delay of 17 years in filing
the written statement. In the said case, it appears that in the official
website of High Court, the status of the suit was reflected as
‘disposed of on 01.03.2000’, however, no such orders were traced,
hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court condoned the delay of 17 years in
filing the written statement.
16. In Bhagwan Swaroop‘s case (4th cited supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed that in a suit for partition, the position of
plaintiffs and defendants can be interchangeable.
17. In Tetengu Rautia‘s case (5th cited supra), the High Court of
Orissa has reiterated the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Bhagwan Swaroop‘s case that in a suit for partition, both the
plaintiff and defendant stand on same footing.
8
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023
18. In Rafiq‘s case (6th cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that an innocent party cannot be allowed to suffer
injustice simply because a chosen advocate has defaulted.
19. In S.Senthil Kumar’s case (7th cited supra), the High Court
of Madras held that no litigant shall be put to prejudice for the fault
on part of the counsel.
20. In Kailash‘s case (8th cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that extension of time in filing the written statement may be
allowed, by imposing costs, if it is needed to be given for
circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons
beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be
occasioned if the time was not extended.
21. In Bharat Kalra’s case (9th cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex
Court reiterated the principle laid down in Kailash‘s case (8th cited
supra) and held that delay in filing written statement could not very
well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of
the written statement is unreasonable.
22. Apropos the above submissions made by learned counsel for
both the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is
whether defendant No.4 is entitled to indulgence of this Court in
9
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023
permitting her to file the written statement, by setting aside the
order dated 17.04.2019 of the trial Court, whereunder her right to
file written statement was forfeited.
23. Undisputably, defendant No.4 came up with two
applications, one to reopen the suit and another to set aside the
order dated 17.04.2019 and to receive her written statement. The
said two applications were filed when the suit was posted for
arguments. However, it is pertinent to note that in the affidavit,
filed in support of the said application, defendant No.4 averred that
she is a lay woman and has no knowledge of legal proceedings and
she came to know that her right to file written statement was
forfeited in the suit, only when the same was pointed out by the
trial Court while the suit was posted for adducing evidence on
behalf of the defendants.
24. A close scrutiny of record discloses that defendant No.4 filed
the aforesaid applications within a period of two weeks from the
date of her knowledge about the order, dated 17.04.2019, forfeiting
her right to file written statement. Thus, it appears that defendant
No.4 acted with diligence in taking steps and showed her bona fide
10
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023
case by filing written statement along with the aforesaid two
applications.
25. Further, it is the case of defendant No.4 that she entrusted
the matter to an advocate, however, he failed to inform her about
filing of written statement and as such, due to her lack of
knowledge of legal proceedings, the written statement could not be
filed in time, which resulted in passing of order by the trial Court
forfeiting her right to written statement. Defendant No.4 further
asserted that non-filing of written statement in time was neither
willful nor wanton and that because of default on the part of her
earlier counsel, she would be put to irreparable loss and injury. A
party is not expected to constantly monitor his/her lawyer or attend
Court hearings once they have engaged a lawyer to putforth their
case.
26. Here, it is pertinent to note that the present suit is filed for
partition of the suit schedule property and therefore, in the light of
the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bhagwan Swaroop‘s case, which was reiterated by the High Court
of Orissa in Tetengu Rautia‘s case, it is to be noted that in a suit
for partition, the position of the plaintiff and defendant can be
11
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023
interchangeable and both stand on the same footing. In other
words, it is implied that substantial rights of the plaintiffs akin to
that of defendant No.4 are involved, which needs to be protected,
even though there are some technical/procedural lapses.
27. Viewed from that angle and also as per the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq‘s case (cited supra) and Kailash’s
case (cited supra), in the instant case as there is
default/inaction/omission on the part of the earlier counsel engaged
by defendant No.4 in following up the suit proceedings, defendant
No.4-a litigant shall not be made to suffer or put to prejudice by
being deprived of her right to defend or putforth her case.
28. Furthermore, as per the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC,
the time limit for filing the written statement is not mandatory, but
only directory. This provision of law together with the observations
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Kalra’s case (cited
supra), entitles the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the
written statement by imposition of costs, as was rightly held by the
trial Court in the impugned common order.
29. As regards the reliance placed by Learned counsel for
respondent No.1 on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
12
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1947 &
1949 of 2023
Garment Craft’s case (cited supra) and K.Valamarthi’s case (cited
supra), the same are not relevant to the present case since this
Court while adjudicating the present Revisions, the question of
either re-appreciating or re-weighing the evidence does not arise.
30. In the light of the foregoing reasons and discussion, this
Court is of considered opinion that the impugned common order
passed by the trial Court is rational and as the respondents herein
failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned
common order, this Court declines to interfere with the same.
31. In the result, the Revision Petitions are dismissed.
32. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. No costs.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:23.07.2025
Dr