Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC= Even though sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the appellate Court, it shall record the reasons for its admission, by failing to oppose the application filed by the respondent, the petitioner has waived his right to question the order of the lower appellate Court. As regards C.R.P.No.187 of 2013, though a wrong provision was cited by the respondent, instead of referring to Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, mere quoting of a wrong provision would not invalidate the order if the Court has jurisdiction to pass such an order. The lower appellate Court has allowed I.A.No.19 of 2013 mainly on the ground that it has already allowed I.A.No.1657 of 2012 permitting the respondent to file additional documents. As the very purpose of granting such permission is to bring the documents on file, this purpose can be served only by recalling one of the parties on whose behalf these documents have been filed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has not committed any error, jurisdictional or otherwise in allowing I.A.No.19 of 2013. In any event, the lower appellate Court has protected the interests of the petitioner by receiving the documents subject to their proof and relevancy.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

Civil Revision Petition Nos.187 and 573 of 2013

Date: 21-02-2013
Between

M.V. Ranga Reddy                                                                      
            ... Petitioner
(C.R.P.No.187 of 2013)

And

Mechalli Gangamma                 
                                                ... Respondent
(C.R.P.No.187 of 2013)


Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Suresh Reddy
(C.R.P.No.187 of 2013)

Counsel for the respondent: ---
(C.R.P.No.187 of 2013)


The Court made the following:




COMMON ORDER:
Both these civil revision petitions involve common subject matter between the same parties.  Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together.
Civil Revision Petition No.187 of 2013 is filed against order, dated 04.01.2013, in I.A.No.19 of 2013 in A.S. No.105 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Anantapur.  Civil Revision Petition No.573 of 2013 arises out of order, dated 31.12.2012, in I.A. No.1657 of 2012 in A.S. No.105 of 2012, of the same Court. 
The petitioner in both the civil revision petitions is the respondent in A.S. No. 105 of 2012 before the lower appellate Court. 
 The respondent herein, who filed the said appeal, filed I.A. No.1657 of 2012 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for receiving 14 documents as additional evidence.  This application was allowed by the lower appellate Court subject to their proof and relevancy.  
Following the said order, the respondent filed I.A. No.19 of 2013 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall DW.2 to adduce additional evidence in order to mark the documents filed by him.  
This application was also allowed by the lower appellate Court, by order, dated 04.01.2013.
At the hearing, Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the lower appellate Court in I.A.No.1657 of 2012 allowing the respondent to file additional documents suffers from error as no reasons as envisaged by sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC have been rendered by the Court.  The learned counsel, however, fairly conceded that his client has not filed counter affidavit opposing the said application, even though at the time of service of a copy of I.A.No.1657 of 2012, his counsel has made an endorsement to the effect that notice is taken, the application is opposed and that time is prayed for counter.  The petitioner has also not pleaded in this civil revision petition that the I.A., was specifically opposed at least during hearing.
Even though sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the appellate Court, it shall record the reasons for its admission, by failing to oppose the application filed by the respondent, the petitioner has waived his right to question the order of the lower appellate Court. 
As regards C.R.P.No.187 of 2013, though a wrong provision was cited by the respondent, instead of referring to Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, mere quoting of a wrong provision would not invalidate the order if the Court has jurisdiction to pass such an order.  The lower appellate Court has allowed I.A.No.19 of 2013 mainly on the ground that it has already allowed I.A.No.1657 of 2012 permitting the respondent to file additional documents.  As the very purpose of granting such permission is to bring the documents on file, this purpose can be served only by recalling one of the parties on whose behalf these documents have been filed.  Therefore, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has not committed any error, jurisdictional or otherwise in allowing I.A.No.19 of 2013.  In any event, the lower appellate Court has protected the interests of the petitioner by receiving the documents subject to their proof and relevancy.         
For the above-mentioned reasons, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision revisions, the interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
                                                  

                                                   C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

21st February, 2013.
Mgr/VGB

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