Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.= It is not as though the defendants were given ample chances to file written statements and the case was posted to 10-02-2010 for their written statement finally or peremptorily.- would appear to be the first occasion on which the defendants did not file written statement.- We are afraid that when the defendants were already set ex parte on 10-02-2010 and an ex parte decree was also passed on the same day, the question of defendants representing their case on 24-02-2010 or on 06-10-2010 or the defendants filing written statements would not arise. In this view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and also set aside the ex parte decree passed against the appellants-defendants. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to the defendants to file written statement and dispose of the case on merits.


HON’BLE  SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH
&

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR



CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.51 OF 2013


Dated: 6th February, 2013


Between:

K.Rajanikanth Reddy and six others 
… Petitioners

And

S.Hanumanth Reddy and one another

… Respondents


























JUDGMENT:  (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G.Shankar )
The appellants are the defendants.  The first respondent-plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction.  Defendant Nos.2 to 8 did not file their written statement on 10-02-2010 the day on which the matter was posted.  They were promptly set ex parte by the learned trial Judge, and the ex parte decree was also passed on the same day i.e., 10-02-2010.   Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.2 to 8 preferred an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. before the trial Court, holding that the defendants did not act in a bonafide manner and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court.  Hence, this appeal.

2.      The record discloses that the defendants failed to file written statements on 10-02-2010.  It is not as though the defendants were given ample chances to file written statements and the case was posted to 10-02-2010 for their written statement finally or peremptorily.  Nevertheless, the trial Court deemed it appropriate to set the defendants ex parte although that would appear to be the first occasion on which the defendants did not file written statement.

3.      The Learned trial Judge goes further to point out that the arguments in the case were heard on 24-02-2010 and that the case was re-opened for further hearing on 06-10-2010, and that on neither of the occasions, the defendants representing their grievance sought for setting aside the ex parte order.  
We are afraid that when the defendants were already set ex parte on 10-02-2010 and an ex parte decree was also passed on the same day, the question of defendants representing their case on 24-02-2010 or on 06-10-2010 or the defendants filing written statements would not arise.    In this view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and also set aside the ex parte decree passed against the appellants-defendants.  The trial Court shall give an opportunity to the defendants to file written statement and dispose of the case on merits. 

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.  No order as to costs.


                                                         ______________________
                                                                          V. ESWARAIAH, J   


                     ______________________
                                                                          K.G.SHANKAR ,J
Dated: 6-2-2013
Nrg / Mva

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.