Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) to direct the respondent to furnish security for the suit amount, failing which the suit schedule property be attached. In support of his application, the petitioner filed third party affidavit of one B.G. Ramalingam, wherein he has stated that the respondent/defendant shifted his family to Bangalore and that he is seeking to alienate the petition schedule property to evade debt to the petitioner. - The respondent further stated that he is having a jewellery shop wherein he has invested several lakhs of rupees; that he is a permanent resident of Hindupur and that he has no intention to sell the property or shifting to Bangalore. petitioner failed to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code and that as the plea of the petitioner in the suit is identical to the defence of his wife in O.S.No.36/2003, there is not even a remote chance of the petitioner succeeding in the suit. On this reasoning, the Court below has dismissed the petitioner’s application.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
C.R.P.No.30 of 2013
Date : 22-1-2013
Between:
 K. Surya Prakash                                                                   .. Petitioner
And

N. Namburi Prabhakar                                                  .. Respondent






Counsel for petitioners : Sri P. Lakshmana Rao
Counsel for respondent :  --












The Court made the following:


ORDER:
           This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 16-11-2012 in I.A.No.468/2011 in O.S.No.29/2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur.
          The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,93,960/- against the respondent.  He has also filed I.A.No.468/2011 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) to direct the respondent to furnish security for the suit amount, failing which the suit schedule property be attached.  In support of his application, the petitioner filed third party affidavit of one B.G. Ramalingam, wherein he has stated that the respondent/defendant shifted his family to Bangalore and that he is seeking to alienate the petition schedule property to evade debt to the petitioner. 
 The respondent filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has stated that the wife of the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from N.P. Satish, his son, and executed a registered simple mortgage deed; that his son filed O.S.No.36/2003 in the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, against the petitioner’s wife for recovery of the mortgage debt wherein the petitioner deposed as DW-2; that in the said suit, the wife of the petitioner has taken the plea that she has discharged the mortgage debt under receipt from the respondent and that disbelieving the said version, the Court has decreed the suit O.S.No.36/2003 on 21-3-2006.  It is further averred that the respondent’s son, in execution of the decree, has brought the mortgaged property to sale and the same was sold in the Court auction which was purchased by the decree-holder himself.  The respondent also averred that having failed in convincing the Court in O.S.No.36/2003 that the mortgage debt was discharged, the petitioner has filed the present suit with a malafide intention to recover the said amount.  
The respondent further stated that he is having a jewellery shop wherein he has invested several lakhs of rupees; that he is a permanent resident of Hindupur and that he has no intention to sell the property or shifting to Bangalore. 
          On the above mentioned pleadings, the lower Court has concluded that the petitioner failed to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code and that as the plea of the petitioner in the suit is identical to the defence of his wife in O.S.No.36/2003, there is not even a remote chance of the petitioner succeeding in the suit.  On this reasoning, the Court below has dismissed the petitioner’s application.
          Having carefully considered the case in its entirety, I am of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the lower Court do not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in this revision petition.  The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
          As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.30/2013 is disposed of as infructuous.
          ________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 22-1-2013
AM

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