Telangana High Court
Sri Chinthalapani Narayana Reddy vs Chinthalapani Surender Reddy on 4 July, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2131 of 2025
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri Nitish Karoor, learned counsel representing Sri K.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the action of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, in not receiving the appeal filed by the petitioner by complying with the objections dated 16.04.2025 raised by the appellate Court in C.M.A.SR.No.392 of 2025.
3. Petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.444 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karimnagar, against the respondents seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The said suit was dismissed for default on 03.12.2024. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil 2 KL, J C.R.P.No.2131 of 2025 Procedure, 1908 to restore the said suit to its original position by setting aside the dismissal order dated 03.12.2024. By order dated 17.03.2025, learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, dismissed the said application.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC before the appellate Court i.e. the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. The same was returned on 16.04.2025 with the following objections:
"i) C.C. of decree not filed.
ii) Court fee not paid on Court order.
iii) Counsel for the appellant not signed on each page of CMA.
iv) The appellant filed the CMA against the dismissal order u/o - 9 Rule 9 of CPC, there is no CMA lies against the said order u/o.43 Rule 1 of CPC, hence how the CMA is entertainable.
Hence, may be returned."
5. According to the petitioner, he has complied with the objections raised by the appellate Court i.e., Objection Nos.1, 3 KL, J C.R.P.No.2131 of 2025 2 and 3. With regard to Objection No.4 i.e., maintainability of the appeal, he has submitted that the appeal is maintainable in terms of Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC by complying with the said objections. When petitioner's counsel tried to re-submit the bundle, the appellate Court is not receiving. Therefore, taking the said specific ground, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
6. Perusal of record would reveal that appellate Court returned the said bundle with the aforesaid objections including the objection of maintainability of appeal itself.
7. As discussed supra, petitioner preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC challenging the order dated 17.03.2025 in I.A.No.524 of 2024 in O.S.No.444 of 2023 through which learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to restore the suit to its original position by setting aside the order dated 03.12.2024 dismissing the suit for default.
4 KL, J C.R.P.No.2131 of 2025
8. In the light of the same, it is relevant to extract Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC:
"ORDER XLIII - Appeals from Orders Rule 1: Appeals from orders--
An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely:--
(a) an order under Rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court except where the procedure specified in Rule 10-A of Order VII has been followed;
(c) an order under Rule 9 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit;
(d) an order under Rule 13 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte;
(f) an order under Rule 21 of Order XI;
(i) an order under Rule 34 of Order XXI on an objection to the draft of a document or of an endorsement;
(j) an order under Rule 72 or Rule 92 of Order XXI setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale;
(ja) an order rejecting an application made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 106 of Order XXI, provided that an order on the original application, that is to say, the application referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of that Order is appealable;
(k) an order under Rule 9 of Order XXII refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit;
5 KL, J C.R.P.No.2131 of 2025
(l) an order under Rule 10 of Order XXII giving or refusing to give leave;
(n) an order under Rule 2 of Order XXV rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit; (na) an order under Rule 5 or Rule 7 of Order XXXIII rejecting an application for permission to sue as an indigent person;
(p) orders in interpleader-suit under Rule 3, Rule 4 or Rule 6 of Order XXXV;
(q) an order under Rule 2, Rule 3 or Rule 6 of Order XXXVIII;
(r) an order under Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 2-A, Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order XXXIX;
(s) an order under Rule 1 or Rule 4 of Order XL;
(t) an order of refusal under Rule 19 of Order XLI to readmit, or under Rule 21 of Order XLI to rehear, an appeal;
(u) an order under Rule 23 or Rule 23-A of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court; (w) an order under Rule 4 of Order XLVII granting an application for review."
9. It says an order under IX Rule 9 of C.P.C., rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of the suit is appealable in terms of Order XLIII 6 KL, J C.R.P.No.2131 of 2025 Rule 1 of CPC. Therefore, the appellate Court has to entertain the said appeal, if the same is otherwise in order.
10. Perusal of the objections raised by the appellate Court would reveal that the appellate Court returned the said bundle on 16.04.2025 with the aforesaid four objections. In the said objections, there is no mention that petitioner has to resubmit the bundle within a specific period by complying with the objections raised by the appellate Court.
11. It is the specific case of the petitioner that when he tried to re-submit the bundle by complying with the objections raised by the appellate Court, the appellate Court refused to receive the bundle. Thus appellate Court can't return the bundle without receiving it. If the petitioner failed to comply with the objections raised by it, it has to pass a reasoned order specifying the reason to petitioner for returning and that the petitioner failed to re-submit the bundle by complying with the objections. It can't refuse to receive the bundle.
7 KL, J C.R.P.No.2131 of 2025
12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, to receive the appeal bundle submitted by the petitioner by complying with the objections raised by it including maintainability of the appeal if the same is otherwise in order, number it, entertain it and dispose of it, in accordance with law.
13. Registry is directed to return the bundle to the petitioner herein.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 4th JULY, 2025.
Pns