since the suit was already withdrawn from his file and ordered to be transmitted to the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar which order was received by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar on 09.08.2012 which bears his initial also, and therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below is not valid.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD


FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

 

PRESENT

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

 

A.S.No.6 of 2013

                                                                                

 

Between:

Nagula Ravinder and another
..... APPELLANTS
And
Nagula Mallaiah (died) and 20 others
.....RESPONDENTS



The Court made the following:

                                                                                 

 


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

 

A.S.No.6 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

Defendants Nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.26 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar are the appellants herein.  The suit was one filed for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties.  A decree was passed on 17.08.2012.
Without going into the merits of the case, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, who has passed the judgment on 17.08.2012, has no jurisdiction to pass the judgment, since suit was already withdrawn from his file by the proceedings of the District Judge, Karimnagar.
As can be seen from the contention, during the inspection of the District Court, Karimnagar as per the directions of the learned Portfolio Judge, the District Judge, Karimnagar has passed an Order on 08.08.2012 re-transmitting some of the suits from the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar to the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, and this is also one of the suits, as per the said list, which is said to be connected with O.S.No.17 of 1996.
          In a similar case in A.S.No.952 of 2012, this Court has called for the report from the District Judge, Karimnagar and the information given by the learned District Judge, Karimnagar shows that the order of the transfer of the case was received by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar on 09.8.2012 and 17.08.2012 the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar is said to have transmitted the suits and this suit was not transmitted and the judgment was delivered on 17.08.2012. 
Therefore, as the matters stand, the judgment delivered by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar is without jurisdiction, since the suit was already withdrawn from his file and ordered to be transmitted to the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar which order was received by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar on 09.08.2012 which bears his initial also, and therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below is not valid.  Consequently, the judgment passed by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar cannot be said to be legal and is accordingly set aside.  O.S.No.26 of 1996 is to be tried by the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and shall dispose of the same on the merits, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to both parties.  The District Judge, Karimnagar is directed to take steps for transmission of the entire record in the suit O.S.No.26 of 1996 to the file of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar who shall dispose of the same.
Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed.  ASMP No.19 of 2013 shall stand closed in consequence.  No order as to costs .


____________________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
Dated: 04.01.2013
Dsr/Ska

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.