The Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, has dismissed an appeal filed with a delay of 950 days against a money recovery decree, rejecting the appellants’ plea for condonation of delay on grounds of non-service of summons. The Court held that the appellants had in fact entered appearance in the trial court but failed to file a written statement and were set ex parte. Finding that the appellants had suppressed material facts and attempted to mislead the Court, it imposed a cost of ₹50,000, to be deposited with the Andhra Pradesh State High Court Legal Services Committee.
Background
The respondent, M.G.R. Rice Industries, filed O.S. No. 11 of 2018 before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram, seeking recovery of money. On 11 April 2022, the trial court decreed the suit.
The appellants, A.S. Traders and its proprietor A. Safar Ali, challenged the decree in Appeal Suit No. 223 of 2025 along with I.A. No. 1 of 2025, seeking condonation of 950 days’ delay. They claimed that they had no knowledge of the suit proceedings as no summons were served, and they only came to know of the decree upon learning about attachment proceedings in Execution Petition No. 145 of 2022.
Court Proceedings and Interim Directions
On 26 June 2025, the High Court noted the appellants’ claim of non-service of summons but observed that the trial court’s judgment stated, “despite receipt of summons, the defendants… did not choose to enter their appearance… and were set ex parte.” The Court called for a report from the trial court regarding service of summons.
The report dated 30 June 2025 revealed that although initial summons by registered post were returned unserved, advocates for the defendants filed vakalat on 26 September 2018, and time was granted until 16 April 2019 to file a written statement. The defendants failed to do so and were set ex parte on 16 April 2019.
Court’s Analysis
The Bench held that the appellants’ claim of non-service of summons was “contrary to the record.” The jurisdictional objection under the Commercial Courts Act was also rejected, as the Special Court had earlier returned the file, holding that the nature of the agreement did not attract its jurisdiction.
The Court concluded that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay, rejected I.A. No. 1 of 2025, and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. It further found that the appellants had filed an affidavit suppressing material facts, amounting to abuse of the Court’s process.
Observations on Suppression of Facts
Citing Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner (2010) 4 SCC 728, Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 398, and Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. Boc India Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC 70, the Court reiterated that litigants are under a duty to make full and candid disclosure of all material facts, and suppression or concealment warrants denial of relief.
The Court rejected the explanation offered by the second appellant that the counsel was engaged without his knowledge, terming it an “afterthought” and holding it “cannot be accepted.”
Observations on Advocates’ Duty
While not taking action against the appellants’ counsel, the Court observed that she should have exercised greater care in verifying instructions, referring to J.S. Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf (1993) 2 SCC 562, M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand (1984 Supp SCC 571), and K. Anjinappa v. K.C. Krishna Reddy (2022) 17 SCC 625 on the high standards of integrity and diligence expected in the legal profession.
Decision
- I.A. No. 1 of 2025: Rejected; delay of 950 days not condoned.
- Appeal: Dismissed as barred by limitation.
- Costs: ₹50,000 imposed on the appellants to be deposited within one month before the Andhra Pradesh State High Court Legal Services Committee.
- Further Proceedings: No further action required beyond compliance with cost payment.
