THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO S.A.No. 1631 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed by appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2011 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge(FTC), Parvathipuram in A.S. No. 68 of 2007 confirming the decree and judgment dated 22.2.2005 passed in O.S. No. 6 of 2001 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili. For the purpose of convenience, the parties as arrayed before the trial Court are referred to hereinafter in this judgment. Brief facts of the appeal are that: Appellant is the Defendant No.1 in O.S. No. 6 of 2001. Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Since the defendant No.1 failed to appear before the lower Court even after service of summons, the lower Court had passed an exparte decree dated 22.2.2005. Challenging the same, the defendant No.1 has preferred A.S. no. 68 of 2007 and the same was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court while dismissing the said appeal held that even the endorsement made by the concerned Amin on the summons sent to Defendant No.1 through Court shows that the summons were served on Defendant No.1 by way of affixture on the conspicuous place of Defendant No.1’s house, but Defendant No.1 was called absent on the date fixed for his appearance. Para 15 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court is relevant for the purpose of consideration of the Second Appeal, which reads thus: “The learned counsel for the 1st defendant has submitted that in fact the 1st defendant has not received any notice or summon from the lower court and as such the appellant has no know3ledge about the pendency of the suit till the filing of the certified copy of the decree and judgment while requesting that under those circumstances the matter may be remanded to lower court enabling the 1st defendant to say his version by filing written statement and adducing his evidence. In order to know the bonafidies I have perused the relevant docket order dt.4.6.2001 and summons through court sent to D-1 available on the record. On careful observation of the same, it came to light that on 4.6.2001 when the trial court called D-1 was absent that the summons sent to D-1 through R.P.A.D. returned as not claimed in spite of intimation and as such trial court set D-1 as an exparte deeming that D-1 refused to receive the summons sent to him by Registered Post. Even the endorsement made by the concerned Amin on the summons sent to D-1 through court shows that the summons was served to D-1 by way of affixture on the conspicuous place of D-1’s house but D-1 was called absent on the date fixed for his appearance. Thus undoubtedly, considering the facts noted above I have seen no bonafides in the submission made by the Learned counsel for the 1st defendant noted above and as such remanding the matter to trial court on the above ground is not justified and as such I ignored the above submission as untenable.” This Court perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. Record shows that the litigation is pending from 2001, since because of the defendant No.1-appellant’s approach to the trial Court in a belated manner. Hence, this Court is of the view that the findings of the lower appellate Court in A.S. No. 68 of 2007 would not suffer with any infirmity, illegality or irregularity and hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 23​.12.2011 CHV