Telangana High Court
M/S. True Wall Specialties Pvt.Ltd vs M/S Agravanshi Aluminium Ltd on 2 April, 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2246 OF 2022
Dated: 02.04.2026
Between:
M/s.True Wall Specialties Pvt.Ltd
Having its office at 182/1, Retiwala Compound,
Cadel Road, Mahim, (West) Mumbai,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory
Mr.Harpreeth Singh Marwah
... Petitioner/Defendant
And
M/s.Agravanshi Aluminium Ltd.
Having its office at 1-8-32/59,
Agarvanshi House, Bapubagh,
Minister Road, Secunderabad
Represented by its Manager Marketing, Mr.Kapil.D
... Respondent / Plaintiff
ORDER
1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115
of CPC assailing the order passed by the learned XXVII Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, I.A.No.1502 of 2018 in O.S.No.229
of 2014, dated 11.07.2022.
2. Petitioner is the petitioner – defendant and respondent is the
respondent – plaintiff in I.A.No.1502 of 2018 in O.S.No.229 of 2014. The
2/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
parties will be hereinafter referred to as petitioner – defendant and
respondent – plaintiff.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant submits that the
impugned order is contrary to the settled legal principles and failed to
appreciate the genuine cause explained, which would certainly constitute
sufficient cause for condoning the delay. On account of misperception on
the part of the petitioner – defendant’s employees, the employer cannot be
made to suffer and be denied of an opportunity to contest the matter on
merits. The learned Trial Court committed error apparent on the face of
the record by relying upon the facts that transpired much prior to the date
of passing to the decree and the reasons assigned are wholly unwarranted,
order lacks valid reasons. The learned Trial Court failed to understand
that the primary function of the Courts are to adjudicate the dispute
between the parties to advance substantial justice, the impugned order
passed by the learned Trial Court is without due consideration of facts in
proper perspective and is against the settled legal maxim “audi alteram
partem”. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the
decisions in the cases of (i) N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy 1, (ii)
Lekh Raj Vs. Muni Lal and Others 2, (iii) Assistant Commissioner,
Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs.
1
(1998) 7 SCC 123
2
(2001) 2 SCC 762
3/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
Shukla and Brothers 3, (iv) A.V.Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Government
of Andhra Pradesh and Others 4, (v) Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of
Jharkhand 5, (vi) Mohamed Ali Vs. V.Jaya and Others 6, (vii) Ashok Kumar
Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 7, (viii) Dwarika Prasad (D),
through LRs Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh 8, (ix) Meenakshisundaram Textiles Vs.
Valliammal Textiles Limited 9, (x) Dhapu Bai and Others Vs. Kundu Mg
(Joint Venture), Delhi and Another 10, (xi) M/s.Cadila Healthcare Limited
Vs. Dr.Abburi Ramaiah and another 11.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff submits that petitioner
– defendant has not shown any bona fide reasons to condone the delay of
180 days to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The learned Trial
Court has assigned cogent reasons and rightly dismissed the delay
application. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the
decisions in the cases of (i) Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan (dead) Through
Proposed Legal representative MS Rohini 12, (ii) Yashpal Jain Vs. Sushila
Devi and Others 13, (iii) Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran and another 14,
3
(2010) 4 SCC 785
4
(2007) 4 SCC 221
5
(2022) 7 SCC 247
6
(2022) 10 SCC 477
7
2023 INSC 659
8
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3828
9
MANU/TN/1715/2011
10
2023 SCC OnLine MP 6880
11
COMCA.No.31 of 2023, dated 16.10.2023 in the High Court for the State of Telangana,
12
(2020) 2 SCC 708
13
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377
14
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093
4/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
(iv) Sivella Yadaiah Vs. V.Pruthvi 15, (v) M/s.Telangana State Industrial
Development Corporation Limited Vs. Sri Mark Raj Kumar and another 16.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant has filed his written
submissions and counsel for the respondent – plaintiff has filed synopsis.
6. Respondent – plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of money of
Rs.26,36,263/- against the petitioner – defendant with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum and with a direction to the defendant to pay an amount
of Rs.96,339/- towards sales tax at the rate of 3% for non production of C-
Form.
7. Petitioner – defendant remained ex-parte before the learned Trial
Court thereby an ex-parte decree came to be passed on 22.12.2017 for an
amount of Rs.26,36,263/- with subsequent interest on the principal sum
of Rs.18,32,305/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the
suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till
realization and further directed the petitioner – defendant to pay cost of the
suit i.e., Rs.29,932/-.
8.1 Petitioner – defendant has filed I.A.No.1502 of 2018 in O.S.No.229 of
2014 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section 151 of CPC
15
2020 (6) ALD 432 (TS)
16
I.A.No.1 of 2025 In/And COMCA.No.1 of 2025, dated 25.07.2025, of the High Court for the State of
Telangana, Hyderabad.
5/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
to condone the delay of 180 days in filing the petition seeking to set aside
the ex-parte decree dated 22.12.2017.
8.2 Affidavit is sworn by Sri. Guru C Dixit representing as CFO of the
petitioner – defendant, they engaged counsel on behalf of the Company. He
left the company in the month of August, 2015 and he informed the same
to the field officer regard the suit proceedings. Unfortunately the field
officer could not intimate the same to the company, he also left. Therefore,
the company could not observe the suit proceedings nor had
communication with the counsel. Suit proceedings are posted from time to
time. He recently joined the company and he came to know from the
company officers that the suit is decreed on 22.12.2017 as the petitioner –
defendant was set ex-parte on 14.10.2015 for non filing of written
statement. Petitioner – defendant has valid grounds to succeed in the suit,
if interlocutory application is not allowed irreparable loss would be caused
and the petitioner – defendant will be denied of valid opportunity and
prayed to condone the delay of 180 days.
9. Respondent – plaintiff remained ex-parte in I.A.No.1502 of 2018.
10. The learned Trial Court observed in the impugned order that the
petitioner – defendant failed to explain the delay properly to the
satisfaction of the Court and dismissed the petition.
6/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in
CRP.No.2246 of 2022 seeking leave of the Court to receive the documents
i.e., certified copy of reply affidavit filed by M/s True Wall Specialties
Private Limited in vide C.P.IB.No.362 of 2021, certified copy of Emails,
certified copy of Payment Voucher No.1741, certified copy of standard
Chartered Bank Account showing the transaction, certified copy of letter of
Credit (LC) dated 25.06.2012, certified copy of the letter issued by
Mr.Guru Dixit and certified copy of the proforma invoice No.03/2012 dated
09.04.2012. The affidavit goes to show that the petitioner – defendant has
paid the entire amount to the respondent – plaintiff.
12. Counter is filed by the respondent – plaintiff contending that the
documents filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 are not relevant for
adjudicating the CRP.
13. In Sanjay Kumar Singh5, the Supreme Court held that where the
additional evidence sought to be adduced removes cloud of doubt over the
case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main
issue in the suit and interest on justice clearly renders it imperative then it
may be allowed to be permitted on record.
14. CRP is arising out of the dismissal of an application i.e., I.A.No.1502
of 2018 in O.S.No.229 of 2014 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
the documents which are filed along with the aforesaid I.A are letter of
credits, payment voucher, proforma invoice. The only point to be
7/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
considered in the CRP is: whether the petitioner – defendant has made out
any case to condone the delay which the learned Trial Court has
dismissed. The documents are not helpful to the case of the petitioner –
defendant. Hence, they are not relevant to the CRP and IA is dismissed.
15.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant submits that the
suit in O.S.No.229 of 2014 was dismissed for default on 23.08.2016 and
later it was restored by an order in I.A.No.1421 of 2016. The learned Trial
Court has not issued notice to the petitioner – defendant after its
restoration and relied on the decision in the case of Dr.Abburi Ramaiah11.
15.2 In Dr.Abburi Ramaiah11 the Division Bench of this Court has set
aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court as no fresh notice is
issued to the party therein after the restoration of the suit.
15.3 Coming to the case on hand, learned Trial Court observed in
internal page No.4 of the order that “notice was ordered to the defendant
[petitioner herein] and notice was duly served upon the petitioner –
defendant who is the respondent in I.A.No.1421 of 2016” and the
Company remained ex-parte, thereby the aforesaid I.A. came to be allowed
and suit was restored and the petitioner – defendant is even having
knowledge about the restoration of the suit but he again kept silent. There
is no material on record to show that after the suit is restored the learned
Trial Court has once again issued notice to the petitioner – defendant but
it is observed in the order that the petitioner-defendant is having
8/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
knowledge about the restoration of the suit. Hence the decision cited by
the learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant stated supra is not
applicable to the case on hand.
16. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner –
defendant that prior to filing the suit itself the Company has paid the
entire amount but the respondent – plaintiff suppressing the said fact has
obtained ex-parte decree. This Court is not venturing into the merits of the
ex-parte decree passed by the learned Trial Court on 22.12.2017.
Furthermore it is not the case of the petitioner – defendant in I.A.No.1502
of 2018 that the company has paid the entire amount.
Decisions cited by the petitioner’s counsel:
17.1 In N.Balakrishnan1, the Supreme Court held that in deciding the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the words ‘sufficient
cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial
justice.
17.2 In Lekh Raj2, the Supreme Court held that “in case of
subsequent event or fact having bearing on the issues or relief in a suit or
proceeding, which any party seeks to bring on record, the Court should
not shut its door”.
17.3 In Shukla, the Supreme Court observed that “the doctrine of
audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against
9/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be
affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard.
Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent
procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and
dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been
uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad.”
17.4 In A.V.Papayya Sastry4, the Supreme Court held that “once it is
established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practicing
or playing fraud, it is vitiated.
17.5 In Mohamed Ali6, the point fell for consideration before the
Supreme Court is whether directly revision application before the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the refusal to
set aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC can be said to
be maintainable or not. The Supreme Court held that the High Court
ought not to have entertained revision petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by
the learned Trial Court in view of a specific remedy of appeal as provided
under the CPC itself.
17.6 In Ashok Kumar7, the Supreme Court held that for the fault of
the advocate, the complainant cannot be made to suffer.
10/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
17.7 In Dwarika Prasad8 the Supreme Court held that Courts should
not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to
both sides and thrash out the matter on merits.
17.8 In Meenakhisundaram Textiles9, the Madras High Court held
that “in the event the defendant is set ex-parte, the Court should be extra
careful in such case and it should consider the pleadings and evidence
and arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a
decree.”
17.9 In Dhapu Bai10, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that
“though the defendant was ex-parte before the learned Trial Court and he
has also not filed the written statement but it is well settled that plaintiff
has to prove his own case and cannot take advantage of the weakness of
the defence. The failure of defendants to establish their case would not
enable the plaintiff to a decree”.
Decisions cited by the respondent’s counsel:
18.1 In Desh Raj12 the Supreme Court dealt with Order VIII Rule 1 of
CPC [power to condone delay in filing written statement beyond the
prescribed period of 90 days] .
18.2 In Yashpal Jain13 the Supreme Court has issued directions to all
Courts at District and Taluka levels shall ensure proper execution of the
summons and in a time bound manner as prescribed under Order V Rule
11/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
(2) of CPC and shall ensure that written statement is filed within the
prescribed limit namely as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 and
preferably within 30 days and to assign reasons in writing as to why the
time limit is being extended beyond 30 days as indicated under Proviso to
Sub-Rule (1) of Order VIII of CPC.
18.3 In Thirunagalingam14, the Supreme Court held that while
considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty
of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by
the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the
main matter.
18.4 Sivella Yadaiah15 the High Court for the State of Telangana was
dealing with Order VIII Rule – 1 – right to file written statement.
18.5 In Sri Mark Raj Kumar16, this High Court held that ‘the appellant
only gives sporadic dates which randomly pop-up in a timeline from
February, 2023 to December, 2024. There is no attempt to explain or
account for the long blanks in-between these dates.
19. On perusal of the affidavit in I.A.No.1502 of 2018 which goes to show
that Sri Guru C Dixit left the company in the month of August 2015 and
he has entrusted the matter to the field officer, the field officer has also left
the company without intimation and thereafter he has recently joined the
company and he came to know from the company officers, that the suit is
12/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
decreed on 22.12.2017. The affidavit is bereft of material particulars such
as when the deponent has joined the company and when he came to know
about the passing of the ex-parte decree by the learned Trial Court.
Furthermore the affidavit is silent that when they made copy application,
when the copy application was ready and when it is delivered to the party.
The delay which is mentioned in I.A.No.1502 of 2008 is 180 days and the
delay of dates are also not mentioned in the affidavit except stating that
there is a delay of 180 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte
decree dated 22.12.2017.
20. In Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and
Others 17, the Supreme Court observed at paragraph Nos. 39 and 40,
which reads as under:
“39. Thus, we have no hesitation in saying that both the expressions,
by a necessary implication indicate that the phrase “within such period”
signifies that the period covered therein extends to not only the original
period within which, the appeal or the application, as the case may be,
should have been filed, if not for the delay, but also the period taken in
addition to the prescribed period of limitation for filing such appeal or
application, as the case may be.
40. As such, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the purpose of
seeking condonation of delay in filing of an appeal or application, as the
case may be, beyond the stipulated period of limitation, the delay in the
filing has to be explained by demonstrating the existence of a “sufficient
cause” that resulted in such delay for both the prescribed period of
limitation as-well as the period after the expiry of limitation, up to actual
date of filing of such appeal or application, as the case may be, or to put
17
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899
13/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
it simply, explanation has to be given for the entire duration from the
date when the clock of limitation began to tick, up until the date of
actual filing, for seeking condonation of delay by recourse to Section 5 of
the Limitation Act.”
21. In the above said decision the Supreme Court held that the delay
in filing has to be explained by demonstrating the existence of a sufficient
cause that resulted in the said delay for both the prescribed period of
limitation as well as period after the expiry of the limitation, up to actual
date of filing of such appeal or application and explanation has to be given
for entire duration from the date when the clock of limitation begins to tick
up until date of actual filing.
22. Decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant
stated supra from paragraph Nos.17.1 to 17.9 are distinguishable from the
facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply
in the present case.
23. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent –
plaintiff at paragraph Nos.18.3 and 18.5 are applicable to the case on
hand and rest of the decisions are not applicable as the facts differs.
24. The affidavit is bereft of material particulars as stated supra, at
paragraph No.19. The learned Trial Court has passed a reasoned order
exercising its discretion while dismissing the application filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner – defendant has not made
14/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2246 of 2022
out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court
and CRP is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
25. CRP.No.2246 of 2022 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions
pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
02.04.2026
Dua