Rule 5 and 6 of Family courts Act = No petition should be dismissed for non-filing of affidavits by family court - As per rule 5 and 6 of Family courts Act , no affidavit is compulsory along with a petition as mentioned in civil rules of practice = = SMT.AYESHA SULTANA VS MR.S.K.AHMED & 2 OTHERS = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=2157&year=2013

As per rule 5 and 6 of Family courts Act , no affidavit is compulsory along with a petition as mentioned in civil rules of practice =

applications were rejected by the Court below at the threshold by separate orders dated 18.03.2013 on the ground that the applications were not supported by an affidavit of the party. =
However relying upon Rules 5 and 6 of the rules made under the Family Courts Act, it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that for the purpose of interlocutory applications no affidavit need be filed by the applicant and it is enough if the applications are duly verified by the applicant. 
It is to be noticed that the Court below did not consider the effect of the Rules made under the Family Courts Act and the applications were merely rejected on the ground that they were not supported by the affidavits.  Therefore, in my considered opinion the applications require reconsideration. 
CRP 2157 / 2013
CRPSR 12561 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SMT.AYESHA SULTANA  VSMR.S.K.AHMED & 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : ALI FAROOQUERESP.ADV. : MOHAMMAD ADNAN
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2157 & 2159 OF 2013

Date:   19.07.2013

Between:

Smt. Ayesha Sultana                         …      Petitioner

And

Mr. S.K. Ahmed and others.              …      Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2157 & 2159 OF 2013

COMMON ORDER:
These two revision petitions are filed by the respondent No.2 in O.P. No.227 of 2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court,Hyderabad.  
It appears that by an order passed on 31.12.2012 the Court below eschewed the evidence of the revision petitioner and therefore she filed two applications viz., I.A. SR.Nos.268 and 413 of 2013 seeking permission to engage an advocate to appear on her behalf and to set aside the order dated 31.12.2012.  
Both the said applications were rejected by the Court below at the threshold by separate orders dated 18.03.2013 on the ground that the applications were not supported by an affidavit of the party.  Aggrieved by the said orders, these two revision petitions are filed.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 
As could be seen from the material available on record the revision petitioner appeared in person before the Court below and filed two applications with the above said prayers.  Admittedly the petitions are not supported by an affidavit. 
However relying upon Rules 5 and 6 of the rules made under the Family Courts Act, it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that for the purpose of interlocutory applications no affidavit need be filed by the applicant and it is enough if the applications are duly verified by the applicant. 
On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that as the petitioner failed to mention any reasons in her applications, she is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted. 
It is to be noticed that the Court below did not consider the effect of the Rules made under the Family Courts Act and the applications were merely rejected on the ground that they were not supported by the affidavits.  Therefore, in my considered opinion the applications require reconsideration. 
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits the orders under revision are set aside and the Court below is directed to consider the contention on behalf of the revision petitioner that as per the Rules made under the Family Courts Act the interlocutory applications can be entertained and considered even without any affidavit and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law.
Both the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of.  No costs.
Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the both the Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed.

__________________
                                                                           G. Rohini,J


Date:  19.07.2013
       GBS/MVA

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.