Once the revision is pending, nothing in the D.V.C. can be said to have become final.hence the document petition is not maintainable - The petitioner wanted certain documents pertaining to D.V.C.No.1014 of 2007 to be made part of record in O.P.No.503 of 2007.The subject matter of the D.V.C. is substantially different from the one in an O.P. for divorce. At any rate, it is brought to the notice of this Court that feeling aggrieved by the order passed in D.V.C.No.1014 of 2007, the respondent filed a criminal revision case before this Court. Once the revision is pending, nothing in the D.V.C. can be said to have become final. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and dismissed the I.A.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1049 of  2013

ORDER:


          Petitioner is the wife of the respondent.  Acute differences have arisen between them and several proceedings have ensued.  The respondent filed O.P.No.503 of 2007 in the Family Court-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for divorce against the petitioner.  On her part, the petitioner filed O.P.No.521 of 2007 for maintenance.  Certain other proceedings are also pending between the same parties and all of them are being heard together.
          The petitioner filed I.A.No.246 of 2013 in O.P.No.503 of 2007 under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination and for marking certain documents pertaining to D.V.C.No.1014 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.  The application was resisted by the respondent.  The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 20.02.2012.  Hence this revision.
          Heard Sri N.Srirama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
          The petitioner wanted certain documents pertaining to D.V.C.No.1014 of 2007 to be made part of record in O.P.No.503 of 2007.The subject matter of the D.V.C. is substantially different from the one in an O.P. for divorce.  At any rate, it is brought to the notice of this Court that feeling aggrieved by the order passed in D.V.C.No.1014 of 2007, the respondent filed a criminal revision case before this Court.  Once the revision is pending, nothing in the D.V.C. can be said to have become final.  The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and dismissed the I.A.
          Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

          The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of.

_____________________
                                                                L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
Dt:15.03.2013
kdl





















    






















































































































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.