CITATION
Reddi Sriramulu v. Valle Dalamuma & Ors.,
C.M.A. No. 432 of 2025, decided on 09-09-2025 (A.P. H.C.)
— Per Challa Gunaranjan, J.APHC010263762025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 432 of 2025
Between:
Reddi Sriramulu … Appellant / Petitioner / Defendant No. 3
And
Valle Dalamuma and Others … Respondents / Plaintiffs / Defendants 1, 2 & 4
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Chinnala Praveen
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Manikanta Thota and Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao
HEADNOTES
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order IX Rule 13 — Ex parte decree — Setting aside — Sufficient cause — Absence due to alleged stay outside State — Burden of proof — Lack of diligence.
Where the defendant, though duly served and represented through counsel, failed to file written statement and was set ex parte in 2022, but took no steps until after the decree was passed in 2024, his plea that he was away in another State for livelihood was held insufficient to constitute “sufficient cause” under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
Held: The appellant’s negligence and prolonged inaction disentitle him to equitable relief. “Sufficient cause” must be shown for the date on which the defendant was set ex parte, not for later circumstances. Application rightly dismissed by trial court — appeal dismissed.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
-
The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 103 of 2018 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, seeking partition of joint family properties.
-
The sole defendant (father) having died during pendency, his three sons (including the appellant, Reddi Sriramulu) were impleaded as legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC.
-
The appellant, though served and represented, failed to file written statement and was set ex parte in 2022. The other two brothers filed written statements but did not contest the suit effectively.
-
The suit was decreed ex parte on 05.07.2024, granting preliminary decree for partition in favour of plaintiffs.
-
The appellant filed I.A. No. 626 of 2024 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, alleging that he was staying in Karnataka for livelihood after his father’s death and came to know of the decree only on 03.08.2024.
-
The trial court dismissed the application by order dated 25.03.2025, holding that the reasons were insufficient and that the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings and failed to act diligently.
-
Aggrieved thereby, the present C.M.A. No. 432 of 2025 was filed before the High Court.
COURT’S REASONING
1. Nature of inquiry under Order IX Rule 13 CPC:
Justice Challa Gunaranjan recapitulated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada (2000) 3 SCC 54, emphasizing that “sufficient cause” under Order IX Rule 13 must be liberally construed, but only if the defendant demonstrates absence of negligence or inaction.
2. Application of law to facts:
-
The record showed that the appellant had received summons and had engaged counsel.
-
He was set ex parte as early as 2022 but remained inactive until 2024.
-
The explanation that he was staying in Karnataka for livelihood was not substantiated by any material and was found vague and unconvincing.
-
The Court observed that diligence was required at least after being set ex parte, but no steps were taken for nearly two years.
3. Finding:
The Court found no bona fides in the appellant’s explanation, holding that the trial court’s order suffered from no infirmity. The reasons did not amount to “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
JUDGMENT / CONCLUSION
“Order IX Rule 13 CPC postulates that an ex parte decree passed against a defendant can be set aside upon satisfaction of the Court that either summons were not duly served or the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
In the present case, the appellant had knowledge of the suit, engaged counsel, and was set ex parte in 2022. His subsequent inaction till the decree in 2024 and vague plea of residing outside the State cannot be accepted as sufficient cause. The trial court rightly rejected his application. This Court finds no reason to interfere.”
Held: Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications closed.
— Challa Gunaranjan, J.
Date: 09.09.2025
ANALYSIS
This judgment restates the strict responsibility of diligence upon defendants once they are duly served and represented. Justice Challa Gunaranjan emphasizes that mere residence outside the jurisdiction or vague pleas of livelihood difficulties do not absolve a litigant from the obligation to monitor the proceedings.
It further reinforces the settled principle that the phrase “sufficient cause” in Order IX Rule 13 CPC is elastic but not limitless — it cannot cover habitual indifference or unexplained dormancy.
The Court’s reliance on G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada provides doctrinal clarity: sufficient cause relates only to the date of hearing when the ex parte order was made, and not to prior or subsequent negligence.
The decision thus exemplifies judicial consistency in distinguishing between genuine inability and willful negligence, ensuring procedural discipline while preventing misuse of the liberal provisions meant for bona fide litigants.
FINAL DISPOSITION
-
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 432 of 2025 — Dismissed.
-
Impugned order (I.A. No. 626 of 2024 in O.S. No. 103 of 2018) — Affirmed.
-
No order as to costs.
-
All pending interlocutory applications — Closed.