correction/amendment in cause title - When once the deed itself has been perused by the Court where it is found that the second defendant’s name is described as Ch. Kantha Rao, the plaintiff/bank cannot institute the I.A., for correcting his name as C.L. Kantha Rao without first making an attempt to correct the deed of guarantee executed by him. Therefore, the reason assigned by the Court for dismissing the I.A. does not warrant any interference and hence this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.


CRP 318 / 2013

CRPSR 1649 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA.,  VSBOKKA NEELAVENDRA RAO AND ANOTHERS
PET.ADV. : CHAKRAVARTHYRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  NELLORE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.318 OF 2013

ORDER:

None appears for the petitioner.

This civil revision petition is directed against an order passed on 31.07.2012 in I.A.No.499 of 2012 in O.S.No.188 of 2012.  The petitioner/bank is the plaintiff in the suit. The second defendant has been described as Ch. Kantha Rao. To correct the same as              C.L. Kantha Rao, the present I.A.No.499 of 2012 was moved. The second defendant in the suit is the guarantor. The learned                 I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore has perused the deed of guarantee produced by the plaintiff/Bank. It reflected the name of the guarantor as Ch. Kantha Rao. Whereas, I.A.No.499 of 2012 has been moved describing that, by mistake the second defendant’s name has been described as Ch. Kantha Rao, whereas it should read as C.L. Kantha Rao.

When once the deed itself has been perused by the Court where it is found that the second defendant’s name is described as Ch. Kantha Rao, the plaintiff/bank cannot institute the I.A., for correcting his name as C.L. Kantha Rao without first making an attempt to correct the deed of guarantee executed by him. Therefore, the reason assigned by the Court for dismissing the I.A. does not warrant any interference and hence this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.


                    ________________________________
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J
5th February, 2013
sp

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO










































CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3702 OF 2010



5th February, 2013
sp

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.

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.

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