simple differences like G.S./ G.in surname initials in the name does not matter when other particulars are correct = When the petitioner insisted that he is only G.Radhakrishnaiah, the respondent filed I.A.No.245 of 2012 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to permit him to correct the cause title by omitting the initial 'S', before the name of the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A through its order, dated 19.11.2012. The same is challenged in this revision.= It is not a case, where serious discrepancy existed as to the description of the person. The person, against whom the respondent claimed the relief is Radhakrishnaiah S/o.Chengaiah, resident of Pakala and Teacher by profession. The notice directly reached the petitioner and he did not raise any objection stating that he is not the addressee. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit and he has also filed a written statement. While the initials before the name of the person arrayed as defendant were 'G.S', the petitioner states that his initial is only 'G'. However, the other particulars, such as father's name, profession, place of residence remained the same and the petitioner did not plead that those particulars do not apply to him. Sometimes, it may happen that the notice addressed to one person is served upon the other. The discrepancy in this regard comes to be resolved, only when the recipient appears in the Court and reveals his identity. If the plaintiffs finds that the person, who receives the notice and appears in the Court, is not the one, against whom he claimed the relief, corrective steps can certainly be taken. After the petitioner appeared in the Court, the respondent herein found him to be the one against whom the relief is claimed. The question as to whether the petitioner borrowed the amount from the respondent and whether he subscribed the signature on the promissory note can certainly be examined with reference to the evidence on record. The amendment ordered by the trial Court would only put the record straight and it cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed in this civil revision petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY        

Civil Revision Petition No.72 of 2013

08.02.2013
       
G.S.Radhakrishnaiah.

Y.Karam Singh.

Counsel for the petitioner    : Sri L.J.Veera Reddy

Counsel for respondent : ---

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred:

ORDER:
        The respondent filed O.S.No.11 of 2011 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge,
Pakala, against the petitioner herein, by name G.S. Radhakrishnaiah S/o.
Chengaiah, Teacher by profession, for recovery of amount on the strength of a
promissory note.  The summons in the suit were served upon the petitioner.  He
filed a written statement, denying the execution of the promissory note or
borrowing of money, apart from pleading that he is only G.Radhakrishnaiah and
that G.S.Radhakrishnaiah is someone else.  The trial of the suit commenced.  In
the course of evidence of petitioner, extensive cross-examination was made
mostly touching upon the identity.
When the petitioner insisted that he is only
G.Radhakrishnaiah, the respondent filed I.A.No.245 of 2012 under Order VI Rule
17 of CPC with a prayer to permit him to correct the cause title by omitting the
initial 'S', before the name of the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the
application. The trial Court allowed the I.A through its order, dated
19.11.2012.  The same is challenged in this revision.
        Heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
        The only amendment sought for by the respondent was as to a minor 
correction in the name of defendant.
 It is not a case, where serious discrepancy
existed as to the description of the person.  
The person, against whom the
respondent claimed the relief is Radhakrishnaiah S/o.Chengaiah, 
resident of
Pakala and Teacher by profession.  
The notice directly reached the petitioner
and he did not raise any objection stating that he is not the addressee.  
The
petitioner entered appearance in the suit and he has also filed a written
statement. 
While the initials before the name of the person arrayed as defendant
were 'G.S', the petitioner states that his initial is only 'G'. 
 However, the
other particulars, such as father's name, profession, place of residence
remained the same and the petitioner did not plead that those particulars do not
apply to him.
        Sometimes, it may happen that the notice addressed to one person is served
upon the other.
The discrepancy in this regard comes to be resolved, only when
the recipient appears in the Court and reveals his identity. 
 If the plaintiffs
finds that the person, who receives the notice and appears in the Court, is not
the one, against whom he claimed the relief, corrective steps can certainly be
taken.  
After the petitioner appeared in the Court, the respondent herein found
him to be the one against whom the relief is claimed.  
The question as to
whether the petitioner borrowed the amount from the respondent and whether he
subscribed the signature on the promissory note can certainly be examined with
reference to the evidence on record.  
The amendment ordered by the trial Court
would only put the record straight and it cannot be said to have caused any
prejudice to the petitioner.
        Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
        The Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed in this civil revision petition
shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
February 8, 2013.

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.