THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 804 of 2010. JUDGEMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgement and Decree dt. 17.6.2010 in A.S.No. 2 of 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kamareddy confirming the Judgement and Decree dt. 3.3.2008 in O.S.No. 34 of 2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. The following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court at the time of admitting the second appeal. i) Whether the trial court erred in not deciding the issue “Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property”, though the said issue was framed by the trial court. ii) Whether the appellate court erred in not noticing the fact that the Judgement and Decree of the trial court was ex parte and ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant/defendant. iii) Whether the 1st appellate court went wrong in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.3 by insisting upon to produce the documents, which the appellant wanted to produce before the trial court, without examining the issue whether there are any valid grounds to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the appellant. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No. 2 of 2010 against the Appellant/APSRTC and the respondents 2 and 3 herein for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property situated in S.No. 778/U, Vidyanagar colony on National Highway No.7, Kamareddy claiming that the said property is her ancestral property and that the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 are interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The contention of the appellant before the trial court was that the Government acquired land including the suit schedule property for the Appellant Corporation and constructed bus depot in some portion of the property and the remaining property including the suit schedule property belongs to APSRTC but the appellant did not file written statement in the suit on the ground that the relevant documents were not available with the Corporation. Though the trial court imposed costs of Rs. 200/- on the appellant for not filing the written statement, the appellant neither paid the costs nor filed the written statement. Thereafter, the trial court recorded the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and decreed the suit restraining the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the Judgement and Decree passed by the trial court, the appellant filed A.S.No. 2 of 2009 before the Additional District Judge, Kamareddy who heard and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to file the documents even on the date of hearing of the appeal. Challenging the Judgement and Decree of the 1st Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed. Before this Court, the Appellant Corporation filed some documents along with a petition to receive them and they have been received. The point that arose for consideration before the 1st Appellate Court was as to whether there are any valid grounds to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the appellant. The 1st Appellate Court without going into the merits of the appeal dismissed the same on the sole ground that the appellant failed to file documents even on the date of hearing of the appeal. Since the mater was adjudicated upon by both the courts below basing on the plaint averments and the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, the decree passed is in the nature of an ex parte decree and in the circumstances stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it appears that the appellant could not file the written statement at appropriate time for non-availability of relevant documents. The 1st Appellate Court also without considering as to whether there are any valid grounds to set aside the ex parte decree insisted upon production of documents by the appellant which are actually necessary for trial before the trial court. The method adopted by the 1st Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal is illegal and it raises a substantial question of law in this second appeal. Therefore, the Judgement and Decree in A.S.No. 2 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kareddy confirming the Judgement and Decree in O.S.No. 34 of 2007 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kareddy is set-aside on condition of the appellant paying costs of Rs. 1000/- which include the costs imposed by the trial court to the legal representatives of the plaintiff, within a period of one month from the date of this Judgement. The learned trial court is directed to receive the written statement and documents filed by the appellant subject to proof and relevancy and subject to payment of costs as directed hereinabove. In the result, the second appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R.KANTHA REDDY, J 24.06.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 804 of 2010. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 24.06.2011.