HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2382 and 2418 of 2011 Date : 23.08.2011 Between : Sirikonda Urmila. …..Petitioner And Bandi Kumaraswamy & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2382 and 2418 of 2011 COMMON ORDER : As these two civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against two interlocutory orders passed in O.S.No.147 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Warangal, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner herein is 2nd defendant in the suit. The suit was originally filed only against the 2nd respondent herein, who is the 1st defendant, in the year 2005. The suit is for injunction simplicitor with regard to suit schedule properties. The petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit, on the application filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the year 2007. After filing of appearance, she was set exparte on 13.12.2007, and thereafter, evidence was let in on behalf of 1st respondent/plaintiff and the 2nd respondent/defendant No.1, and when the matter was coming up for arguments, the petitioner herein has filed two applications in I.A.Nos.690 of 2010 and 689 of 2010. I.A.No.690 of 2010 is filed under Section 151 of CPC, seeking to reopen the suit to lead evidence and I.A.No.689 of 2010 is filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, seeking to set aside the exparte order, dated 13.12.2007. Both the aforesaid applications are dismissed by the impugned orders. 3. In these revisions, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner Sri M.Ravindra Nath Reddy, that though sufficient reasons have been given by the petitioner to reopen the suit and to set aside the exparte order, the Court below, without assigning valid reasons, has passed the impugned orders, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as the petitioner was suffering from Cancer from July 2007, she was taking treatment at Hyderabad, as such, she could not pursue the matter and her husband also has not paid attention to lookafter the proceedings in the suit. It is further submitted that in any event, the petitioner can be permitted to participate in the further proceedings in the suit. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of K. Alivelamma Vs. K.Suryanarayana and others[1]. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri C.A.R.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff that having appeared through her counsel on 11.09.2007, there is no reason for non- appearance of the petitioner for about three years. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as the suit is of 2005, evidence is already closed and when the matter was coming up for arguments, these applications are filed only to drag on the proceedings. 5. In this case, the only aspect which requires to be considered is, whether the suit can be ordered to be reopened at this stage, for the purpose of leading evidence and also whether any grounds are made out to set aside the exparte order, dated 13th December 2007. 6. According to the petitioner, she was suffering from Cancer from the month of July 2007 and was undergoing treatment. It is to be noticed at this stage that the appearance was filed on behalf of petitioner by her counsel on 11.09.2007 after she was attacked with the disease in the month of July 2007. Except stating that she was taking treatment as such she could not pursue the matter, no material is placed on record and no valid explanation is offered to explain her silence for about three years. It is to be noticed that the suit is of 2005, evidence was already closed on behalf of 1st respondent/plaintiff and also the 2nd respondent/1st defendant. In the absence of any valid explanation, explaining her silence for about three years after appearance, I do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner that the Court below ought to have allowed the petitioner to participate in the proceedings by setting aside the exparte order, dated 13th December 2007. As the evidence is already closed and as the petitioner has come up with the applications belatedly when the matter is coming up for arguments, that too without valid reasons either to reopen the suit or to set aside the exparte order, dated 13th December 2007, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. 7. But, at the same time, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner can be permitted to participate in the future proceedings in the suit. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of K. Alivelamma (1 supra), in identical circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the petitioner even though set exparte, can be permitted to participate in the proceedings from the stage at which he or she appears. In the aforesaid judgment, relying on the earlier judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1964 SC 993), the learned Single Judge has held that the revision petitioner therein can be permitted to participate in the proceedings from the stage at which she put-in her appearance, but cannot be permitted to put back the hands of the clock by filing her written statement and recalling the witnesses already examined, as the reasons for the laches and long silence and inaction on her part for more than six long years are not properly explained by her. Even in the present case, this Court is of the view that no valid explanation is given by the petitioner for her non-appearance for three years, but as it is stated that the matter is coming up for arguments, the petitioner can be allowed to participate in the proceedings from the present stage. 8. Similar view is taken by Kerala High Court in the case of Kumara Pillai Vs. Thomas[2], wherein, a learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court has held that the defendant against whom, an order declaring him ex parte was passed on the date of the first hearing, is entitled to come in and take part in the trial at a later stage. 9. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the request of the learned counsel for petitioner to allow the petitioner to participate in the proceedings of the suit from the present stage, can be considered, but however, the petitioner is not entitled either for reopening of the suit or to seek for setting aside the exparte order, dated 13th December 2007. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, C.R.P.No.2382 of 2011 is dismissed and C.R.P.No.2418 of 2011 is disposed of, while confirming the order of the trial Court, dated 15.06.2011, passed in I.A.No.689 of 2010, the petitioner is permitted to participate in the further proceedings in the suit in O.S.No.147 of 2005, from the present stage. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd August 2011 ajr [1] 2007(4) ALT 430 [2] AIR 1961 KERALA 287