Order - XXI Rules – 54 (1A), 66 and 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for execution of the decree. sale batta was not paid.= The executing Court ought to have given time to the petitioner to pay batta. The fruits of the decree, which is obtained after so much of ordeal, cannot be denied to the petitioner on hyper-technicalities at the time when the Courts are sensitizing the people about their rights and making efforts to take justice to the doorsteps of the people. The impatience executed by the trial Court cannot be countenanced.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1091 AND 1104  OF 2013


COMMON ORDER:

          Petitioner filed O.S. No.189 of 2010 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for recovery of amount.  The suit was decreed and the decree became final.  Thereupon, petitioner filed E.P. No.115 of 2011 under Order - XXI Rules – 54 (1A), 66 and 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for execution of the decree.  It was noticed that sale batta was not paid.  Petitioner filed E.A. No.26 of 2013 with a prayer to condone the delay of
35 days in filing batta.  The executing Court passed order dated 31-01-2013 dismissing the said E.A.  On the same day, E.P. was also dismissed on the ground that sale batta was not paid.

          2.  Heard Sri P.V.S.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.  Though the respondent was served with notice, he has not entered his appearance.

4.  The executing Court ought to have given time to the petitioner to pay batta.  The fruits of the decree, which is obtained after so much of ordeal, cannot be denied to the petitioner on hyper-technicalities at the time when the Courts are sensitizing the people about their rights and making efforts to take justice to the doorsteps of the people.  The impatience executed by the trial Court cannot be countenanced.   
       
          5.  Therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders of the trial Court in E.A. No.26 of 2013 and E.P. No.115 of 2011 dated 31-01-2013 are set aside and the E.P. is restored to its file.  Two weeks time is granted to the petitioner to comply with the deficiencies, if any, in the context of deposit of batta
There shall be no order as to costs.
         
6.  Consequently, the Miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall stand disposed of. 
    
_____________________
                                                          L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
April 10, 2013.
VVR/PV

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

SALE OF ASSIGNED LAND OF EX- SERVICE MEN AFTER 10 YEARS, NOT QUESTIONABLE= The lands that are assigned to Ex-servicemen, however, are treated differently. For all practical purposes, such lands are taken away from the purview of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1994, directing that, after expiry of ten years from the date of assignment, the Ex-servicemen shall be entitled to alienate the land assigned to them. In case, ten years have expired from the date of assignment in favour of the vendor’s vendor of the petitioner, the respondents cannot object the alienation made by his vendor.

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.