NO NOTICE AFTER TRANSFER OF THE CASE = admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that after transfer of the said I.P. from the District Court, Vizianagaram to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, there was any notice to the appellant i.e., the appellant had no information about transfer of the said I.P. from the District Court, Vizianagaram to Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram and also the date of hearing and hence, the appellant cannot be put to any blame nor can the case be dismissed as such, that too, for default Hence, C.M.A.No.296 of 2001 is allowed and the order, dated 29.12.2000, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, in I.P.No.1 of 1999 is set aside.

CMA 453 / 2010

CMASR 6341 / 2001

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
B.SRINIVASA RAO  VSANDHRA CEMENT LTD.VISK.& 23 ORS
PET.ADV. : VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATIRESP.ADV. : RAJA RAO
SUBJECT: INDIAN SUCCESSION ACTDISTRICT:  VIZIANAGARAM
PUBLISHED IN http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2010/cma/cma_453_2010.html
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.296 of 2001
and 453 of 2010

COMMON JUDGMENT(per the Hon’ble Sri JusticeB.Prakash Rao)

          Since both the appeals are between the same parties and relate to the same matter, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
C.M.A.No.296 of 2001 is filed against the order, dated 29.12.2000, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, in I.P.No.1 of 1999, whereunder the said I.P. was dismissed for default.
C.M.A.No.453 of 2010 is filed against the order, dated 11.10.2000, passed by the District Judge, Vizianagaram District, in I.P.No.1 of 1999, whereunder the said I.P. was made over to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, for disposal in accordance with law.
In C.M.A.No.296 of 2001, the grievance of the appellant, who filed the Insolvency Petition, is to the effect that originally, the said I.P. was filed before the District Judge, Vizianagaram. However, the same was made over by the District Judge, Vizianagaram to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. Subsequent to the said transfer, the appellant had no notice of the same, yet the matter was taken up and the case was dismissed for default, which is not correct.
Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.
We are of the view that admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that after transfer of the said I.P. from the District Court, Vizianagaram to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, there was any notice to the appellant i.e., the appellant had no information about transfer of the said I.P. from the District Court, Vizianagaram to Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram and also the date of hearing and hence, the appellant cannot be put to any blame nor can the case be dismissed as such, that too, for default  Hence, C.M.A.No.296 of 2001 is allowed and the order, dated 29.12.2000, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, in I.P.No.1 of 1999 is set aside.
In C.M.A.No.453 of 2010, the grievance of the appellant is as regards the transfer of the said I.P. from the District Court, Vizianagaram to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram.
The objection raised by the appellant is to the effect that having regard to the valuation of the very Insolvency Petition i.e., a sum of Rs.11,68,657/-, the question of making over the said I.P. to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram by the District Judge, Vizianagaram, does not arise and the order is wholly unsustainable.
On perusal of the material on record, we find that there is no dispute as regards the valuation of the Insolvency Petition i.e., Rs.11,68,657/-. Hence, necessarily the matter has to be disposed of only by the District Court as per Section 3 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.
For the foregoing reasons, C.M.A.No.453 of 2010 is allowed and the order, dated 11.10.2000, passed by the District Judge, Vizianagaram District, in I.P.No.1 of 1999 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Court, Vizianagaram, for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both the parties.
Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders therein are set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________
JUSTICE B.PRAKJASH RAO


_______________________
JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

10th June 2010
dr

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.