Once the suit is transferred, the court holds no jurisdiction to pass any orders therein much more judgement = “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Karimnagar, who passed the judgment on 25.09.2012, has no jurisdiction to pass the judgment since the suit was already withdrawn from his file by the proceedings of the District Judge, Karimnagar.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, as per the directions of the Portfolio Judge, the District Judge has passed an order dated 08.08.2012 re-transmitting some of the suits from the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, to the Court of III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and this suit is also one such suit, which were to be transferred. This Court has called for the information from the learned District Judge, Karimnagar and the letter of the learned District Judge shows that the order of the transfer of the cases was received by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, on 09.08.2012 and except this suit, on 17.08.2012, the I Additional District Judge is said to have transmitted all the suits. Therefore, as the matter stands, 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delivered by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is without jurisdiction since the suit was already withdrawn from his file and ordered to be transmitted to the III Additional district Judge. Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District Judge cannot be said to be legal and is, accordingly, set aside. O.S.No.47 of 1996 is to be tried by the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and shall dispose of the same on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to both the parties.

AS 31 / 2013

ASSR 15814 / 2012 
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
NAMPALLY CHANDRAIAH (DIED) & 7 OTHERS  VSKHAJA HUSSAIN & 23 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : NARAYANA RAORESP.ADV. : RAM MOHAN REDDY
SUBJECT: DECLARATIONDISTRICT:  KARIMNAGAR


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

 

A.S. NO. 31 OF 2013


JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2012 passed in O.S.No. 49 of 1996 by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, the present appeal is filed.
When the matter is taken up for disposal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2012 in A.S.No. 952 of 2012, which is not disputed. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“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 passed the judgment on 25.09.2012, has no jurisdiction to pass the judgment since the 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, as per the directions of the Portfolio Judge, the District Judge has passed an order dated 08.08.2012 re-transmitting some of the suits from the file of the
I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, to the Court of III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and this suit is also one such suit, which were to be transferred. 
This Court has called for the information from the learned District Judge, Karimnagar and the letter of the learned District Judge shows that the order of the transfer of the cases was received by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, on 09.08.2012 and except this suit, on 17.08.2012, the I Additional District Judge is said to have transmitted all the suits. 
Therefore, as the matter stands, 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. 
Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District Judge cannot be said to be legal and is, accordingly, set aside.  O.S.No.47 of 1996 is to be tried by the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and shall dispose of the same on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to both the parties.

The same observation is to be applied here with reference to the matter on hand.
In the result, this Appeal is also allowed and the order dated 25.9.2012 passed in O.S.No. 49 of 1996 is set aside. Further the mater is remanded and is to be tried by the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.  Further it shall be disposed of on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and after giving notice to both the parties.

_______________________________

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

 

DATE:  04.02.2013

KA





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