Common Order

1. Civil Revision Petition No.3661 of 2025 has been filed against an order dated 29.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.237 of 2022 in O.S.No.276 of 2016 by the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar (‘Trial Court’).

2. By the said impugned order, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.237 of 2022 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs for condoning the delay of 1414 days in filing I.A.No.236 of 2022 seeking restoration of the Suit. The respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs’ Suit had earlier been dismissed for default on 15.03.2018 pursuant to the plaintiffs’ non-appearance and failure to file evidence and to deposit process fee.

3. By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the plaintiffs’ IA (237 of 2022) on the ground that the plaintiffs had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The petition was allowed on costs of Rs.14,140/- payable to the respondent No.14 therein by 27.10.2025. The petitioner before this Court is the defendant No.14 in the Suit filed for partition and the respondent No.14 in the said I.A.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.14 places a series of docket orders in the Suit, including of 07.09.2017, 22.12.2017 and 15.03.2018, to urge that the Trial Court erred in restoring the Suit against the petitioner/defendant No.14.

5. Counsel further submits that none of the three grounds as shown by the plaintiffs, viz., the ill-health of the plaintiff No.1, the Covid-19 Pandemic and the erstwhile counsel not having provided information regarding the stage of the Suit, were supported by any documentary evidence.

6. The plaintiffs’ I.A.No.237 of 2022 for condonation of delay mentions only the docket order dated 15.03.2018, whereby the plaintiffs’ Suit was dismissed for default. This would also be evident from paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of the Affidavit filed in support of the IA. In essence, the plaintiffs had filed the IA for restoring the Suit which was dismissed by the docket order dated 15.03.2018.

7. A perusal of the docket orders placed by counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.14 shows that on 22.12.2017, the Trial Court while recording that the process fee had not been paid for the defendant Nos.1, 8 to 12 and 14 and that they remained unrepresented till 04:30 P.M., proceeded to dismiss the Suit against the said defendants.

8. By the docket order dated 15.03.2018, the Trial Court recorded that the costs had not been paid, the plaintiffs remained absent and there was no representation till 3:45 P.M. The docket order records that the plaintiffs had not shown interest in producing evidence, and the Trial Court accordingly dismissed the Suit for default with costs. In this connection, it is also relevant to refer to the earlier docket order dated 07.09.2017, which records, inter alia, that fresh notice had been issued to the defendant Nos.1, 8 to 12 and 14 through the Court.

9. Hence, on 22.12.2017, the Suit was dismissed as against the defendant No.14 (petitioner herein). On 15.03.2018, the Suit was dismissed in its entirety. However, in the IA, the plaintiffs however only prayed for recalling of the order dated 15.03.2018. The IA does not refer to the docket order dated 22.12.2017 by which the Suit was dismissed as against the petitioner/defendant No.14 due to failure to pay process fees.

10. Thus, the Trial Court could not have given any relief to the plaintiffs in terms of restoration of the Suit as against the petitioner/defendant No.14. The Trial Court failed to notice this fact and only reasoned that it would be unfair to disallow the plaintiff from proceeding with the main Suit. Even otherwise, the plaintiff’s IA is on record.

11. Apart from bare statements with regard to the three grounds, the IA does not disclose any documentary evidence in support of the said contentions. It is relevant to mention that the effect of the Covid-19 Pandemic was felt from January/February 2020. However, the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to pay the process fee and the costs pertained to the months of December, 2017 and March, 2018, respectively which was way before the first impact of the pandemic.

12. Similarly, the plaintiffs’ petition under Order IX Rule 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for setting aside the docket order dated 15.03.2018 is premised exactly on the same three grounds, viz., ill-health of the plaintiff No.1, Covid-19 Pandemic and failure on the part of the erstwhile counsel to contact the plaintiff regarding the stage of the Suit.

13. Civil Revision Petition No.4016 of 2025 has been filed against the docket order dated 27.10.2025 by which the plaintiffs’ IA (236 of 2022) for setting aside the docket order dated 15.03.2018 was allowed.

14. The impugned docket order dated 27.10.2025 contains no reasons for such order save and except that the plaintiffs’ I.A.No.237 of 2022 (for condonation of delay of 1414 days in filing the restoration petition i.e., I.A.No.236 of 2022) was allowed on 29.08.2025. The order dated 29.08.2025 is the subject matter of the CRP No.3661 of 2025.

15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, viz., (i) the plaintiffs having sought relief only against the docket order dated 15.03.2018, (ii) the absence of sufficiency of cause in the plaintiffs’ IA (237 of 2022) for condonation of delay and (iii) the lack of reasons for allowing I.A.No.236 of 2022, the impugned orders dated 29.08.2025 and 27.10.2025 are liable to be interfered with and are accordingly set aside.

16. CRP Nos.3661 and 4016 of 2025, along with all connected applications, are accordingly allowed and disposed of.