Document petition dismissed for delay and for not assigning reasons for delay = no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner/defendant as to why this document was sought to be filed at a belated stage.= the petitioner/defendant had earlier filed I.A.No.1368 of 2012 on 27.11.2012 seeking to adduce additional documentary evidence. The said I.A. was allowed by the Court below. Again, the petitioner/defendant filed the present I.A. to receive one more document. The affidavit filed in support of this I.A. was bereft of reasons as to why this document was not filed along with the earlier I.A. As pointed out by the Court below, no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner/defendant as to why this document was sought to be filed at a belated stage.


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.156 of 2013

 

DATED:  25.02.2013

 

Between:

 

V.Venkatalaxmi

   ...  Petitioner/Defendant

And

 

 

M.Venkateswara Prasada Reddy              …   Respondent/Plaintiff







                                      





The Court made the following:

                         HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.156 of 2013



ORDER:       


The defendant in O.S.No.570 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, is the  petitioner.  She filed I.A.No.1490 of 2012 in O.S.No.570 of 2002 to receive an additional document.  By order dated 27.12.2012, the Court below dismissed the said I.A.  Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the petitioner/defendant had earlier filed I.A.No.1368 of 2012 on 27.11.2012 seeking to adduce additional documentary evidence.  The said I.A. was allowed by the Court below.  Again, the petitioner/defendant filed the present I.A. to receive one more document.  The affidavit filed in support of this I.A. was bereft of reasons as to why this document was not filed along with the earlier I.A.  As pointed out by the Court below, no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner/defendant as to why this document was sought to be filed at a belated stage.
3. This Court therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, in I.A.No.1490 of 2012 in O.S.No.570 of 2012.

4. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. CRP MP No.223 of 2013 shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.

_________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J


Date: 25th February, 2013
Pab/Bsb


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

 

 

 

 

 

 

                   

 

                                   

 

 

 

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION  No.156 of 2013








                                           25th February, 2013


                             

Pab/Bss

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