Payment of DCF on several adjournments due to slackness of lower court advocate - party should not be punished - opportunity given to pay DCF == PETITIONER RESPONDENT V JAYANATHI VS G GURRAMMA = hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo=CRP&mno=2201&year=2013

Payment of DCF on several adjournments due to slackness of lower court advocate - party should not be punished - opportunity given to pay DCF =
there appears to be slackness on the part of the counsel before the Court below and that the petitioner may not be allowed to suffer on account of such slackness.
Considering the fact that the suit is filed for recovery of money and taking a lenient view, I am inclined to provide one chance to the petitioner for payment of deficit court fees and comply with other defects.
Accordingly, I.A.No.71 of 2013 in the unnumbered suit on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to pay the deficit court fee and comply with all the defects within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, I.A.No.71 of 2013 will stand dismissed.
Subject to the above conditions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, the C.R..P.M.Ps, if any, pending are disposed of as infructuous.

CRP 2201 / 2013

CRPSR 9979 / 2013

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
V JAYANATHI  VSG GURRAMMA
PET.ADV. : SRAVAN KUMARRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: C.P.C.DISTRICT:  KURNOOL

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2201 of 2013

Date:06.06.2013

Between:

V.Jayanthi, W/o Late Prakasham

..... Petitioner

And

G.Gurramma, W/o Late Pullaiah

.....Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:  Sri G.Sravan Kumar

 

Counsel for the Respondent:  ---


The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 13.02.2013, in I.A.No.71 of 2013 in unnumbered suit on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.
The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. As the petitioner has filed the said suit by affixing only Rs.2/- court fees with many defects, she has filed an application under Section 149 C.P.C. to permit her to file the plaint along with the deficit court fees. The said application was allowed. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.71 of 2013 under Section 148 C.P.C for extension of time by 30 days for complying with the order passed on the earlier occasion. When the said application was taken up for hearing on 28.01.2013, there was no representation for the petitioner. The case was accordingly adjourned to 01.02.2013. As the counsel was not present even on that date, it was adjourned to 08.02.2013 and also to 13.02.2013. As there was no representation for the petitioner on any one of those dates, including on 13.02.2013, the Court below has dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.
On the facts of this case as noted above, the Court below has every justification to dismiss the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there appears to be slackness on the part of the counsel before the Court below and that the petitioner may not be allowed to suffer on account of such slackness.
Considering the fact that the suit is filed for recovery of money and taking a lenient view, I am inclined to provide one chance to the petitioner for payment of deficit court fees and comply with other defects.
Accordingly, I.A.No.71 of 2013 in the unnumbered suit on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to pay the deficit court fee and comply with all the defects within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, I.A.No.71 of 2013 will stand dismissed.
Subject to the above conditions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, the C.R..P.M.Ps, if any, pending are disposed of as infructuous.

__________________________
                                                JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
06th June 2013
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.