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


















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.