Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. = Therefore, it is quite clear that having made an order in the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act final, the discretion exercised by the Court below in restoring the suit cannot be again re-agitated. So far as the grievance with regard to non-imposition of costs is concerned, in fact there are two limbs under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C., and the Court has a discretion to set aside the dismissal order if sufficient cause is shown for non-appearance and such a setting aside would be subject to such terms as to the costs or otherwise, as it thinks fit.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD

 


MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

 

PRESENT

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

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 605 of 2013

 

Between:

 

Kotikelapudi Balasarada Kumari                                 ..... PETITIONER

AND

 

M/s Kings Enterprises, a registered partnership,
Rep. by its Managing Partner Vegesle Narayana Raju
and three others.                                                    .....RESPONDENTS




















The Court made the following:

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

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 605 of 2013

ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I.A.No.1245 of 2010 in O.S.No.11 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 
2.       The revision petitioner is defendant in the suit and the above said application was filed Under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C., to set aside the default order dated 25.06.2008 and the Court below after considering the reasons mentioned, allowed the application.  Aggrieved by the said order the present revision is filed. 
3.       As can be seen from the record, the counsel for the Revision Petitioner contends that the provisions of the Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C., have not been complied with, since there was no order as to costs and there is no sufficient reason to restore the suit.  Further, it is his contention that after the dismissal of the suit, some third party interests have been created and the cause of action does not survive. So far as the later contention is concerned, it is a matter, which has to be decided by the Court during the trial.  So far as the grounds for setting aside the dismissal order is concerned, the Court has already condoned the delay of 38 days in I.A.No.2644 of 2008 accepting the reasons given by the plaintiffs and on the same cause, the suit has been restored.  Therefore, it is quite clear that having made an order in the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act final, the discretion exercised by the Court below in restoring the suit cannot be again re-agitated.  So far as the grievance with regard to non-imposition of costs is concerned, in fact there are two limbs under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C., and the Court has a discretion to set aside the dismissal order if sufficient cause is shown for 
non-appearance and such a setting aside would be subject to such terms as to the costs or otherwise, as it thinks fit. 
 Therefore, I am not able to accept the contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner that imposition of the costs is mandatory before an order of restoration is made under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C.  On the other hand, if sufficient cause is shown, it is mandatory to set aside the dismissal order on such terms as to costs or otherwise.  In this case the Court below has imposed conditions about the trial of the suit and also for filing of the list of witnesses.  Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower Court for non-imposition of the costs in restoring the suit.  But however, the counsel for the revision petitioner represents that prior to the dismissal, costs were imposed against the plaintiff and those costs were also not paid.   I feel, in the interest of justice, if the earlier costs which were already imposed should have been directed to be paid by the plaintiffs.  
Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the lower court is directed to see that the costs, if any, imposed prior to restoration of suit shall be paid before the commencement of the trial as per the orders of the Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.  Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand disposed of.  No order as to costs.

________________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
Date: 19.02.2013
SSV/KVS

 

 

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