About Me

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Sec.5 of Limitation Act - condonation of 77 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC= KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD., VS SMT. VELMELA YETTAMMA AND 4 OTHERS = Published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=62&year=2013

Sec.5 of Limitation Act - condonation of 77 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC= 
The 2nd defendant entered appearance in the suit well within time on 20-01-2012 itself, but failed to file written statement till 12-06-2012.  Even after passing of preliminary decree on 14-06-2012, the 2nd defendant/petitioner did not file the petition for setting aside the decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC within the stipulated period of 30 days.  
There was 77 days delay in filing the said petition, for which there is absolutely no attempt made for explaining the same.  In the circumstances, the lower Court rightly dismissed the petition for condonation of delay.  I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the lower Court.  
CRP 62 / 2013
CRPSR 333 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD.,  VSSMT. VELMELA YETTAMMA AND 4 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : MURTHYRESP.ADV. : SRINIVAS PRASAD
SUBJECT: C.P.C.DISTRICT:  MEDAK
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 62 OF 2013
ORDER:                                
        The petitioner/2nd defendant sought the lower Court for condonation of 77 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on the ground that summons to the 1st defendant in the suit were served at Malakpet address where the company was not then working and the company was working from Bahadurpura and that by the time summons was brought to the knowledge of the 1st defendant, the time had expired.

        2.  The lower Court gave several dates which totally falsify the allegations of the petitioner/2nd defendant in the petition.  Summonses were served on defendants 1 and 2 on
20-01-2012.  When advocate by name K.S.R. Murthy filed memo undertaking to file Vakalat for the petitioner/
2nd defendant, the suit was adjourned to 16-02-2012. 
On 16-02-2012, the said advocate filed Vakalat for the
2nd defendant.  The suit was adjourned from time to time and the petitioner/2nd defendant did not file written statement within the stipulated period of 90 days, and so he was set
ex parte and the suit was posted for ex parte evidence. 
On 12-06-2012, affidavit in lieu of examination in-chief of PW.1 was filed and documents were marked.  On 14-06-2012,
ex parte decree was passed by the lower Court.  In the light of the above facts and evidence which occurred in Court, the petitioner/2nd defendant cannot have any grievance on service of summons to the 2nd defendant company at Malakpet address.   The 2nd defendant entered appearance in the suit well within time on 20-01-2012 itself, but failed to file written statement till 12-06-2012.  Even after passing of preliminary decree on 14-06-2012, the 2nd defendant/petitioner did not file the petition for setting aside the decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC within the stipulated period of 30 days. 
There was 77 days delay in filing the said petition, for which there is absolutely no attempt made for explaining the same.  In the circumstances, the lower Court rightly dismissed the petition for condonation of delay.  I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the lower Court.  

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.


                _____________________________
                         SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.

January 30, 2013.
Mgr


















No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.