Two suits clubbed- Trial court order to adduce evidence of plaintiff in main suit - suo moto trial court modified the order and directed the defendants in another suit to adduce evidence first - collusive parties of plaintiffs in main suit - their lordships held that For all practical purposes, the trial Court reviewed its order dated 04-03-2011 without there being an application. It is only typographical and clerical mistakes, that can be corrected by the Courts, on their own accord. When a written order, brief or long, is passed with a definite purport, the Court cannot review, it in the absence of the application by the aggrieved party. Even on merits, the order under revision cannot be sustained. The record discloses that the 4th respondent is supporting the case of his parents-respondent Nos.1 and 2. The 1st petitioner figured as defendant in both the suits. Therefore, it is essential and mandatory that the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs in both the suits must be recorded at a stretch and only thereafter the evidence on behalf of the petitioners must be recorded. The course of action adopted by the trial Court runs contrary to the letter and spirit of Order 18 CPC. The C.R.P accordingly allowed = Smt. T. Ushasri and another... PETITIONERS Smt. R.J. Lakshmi Devi ands ix others RESPONDENTS = 2014 - july-part- http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11668

Two suits clubbed- Trial court order to adduce evidence of plaintiff in main suit - suo moto trial court modified the order and directed the defendants in another suit to adduce evidence first - collusive parties of plaintiffs in main suit - their lordships held that For all practical purposes, the trial Court reviewed its order dated 04-03-2011 without there being an application.
It is only typographical and clerical mistakes, that can be corrected by the Courts, on their own accord.  When a written order, brief or long, is passed with a definite purport, the
Court cannot review, it in the absence of the application by the aggrieved party.
Even on merits, the order under revision cannot be sustained.  The record discloses that the 4th respondent is supporting the case of his parents-respondent Nos.1 and 2. The 1st petitioner figured as defendant in both the suits. Therefore, it is essential and mandatory that the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs in both the suits must be recorded at a stretch and only thereafter the evidence on behalf of the petitioners must be recorded.  The course of action adopted by the trial Court runs contrary to the letter and spirit of Order 18 CPC. The C.R.P accordingly allowed =

Once the suits are clubbed, it is essential that such of
the parties in the suits, so clubbed, as are pursuing one
line, must be directed to depose at one instance whether or
not they figure in the same fashion in the suits as parties.
Keeping this in view that the trial Court passed the order on
04-03-2011 as under:
Since the plaintiff in OS 130 of 2006 evidence not
recorded to record the evident of Plaintiff in OS. 130 of
2006.  Call on 14-03-2011.
If any of the respondents are aggrieved by this course of
action, they ought to have pursued the remedies vis--vis the
order.
Nothing of that sort has taken place.
However, on its
own accord, the trial Court passed an order on 16-03-2011 as
under:
The earlier order dated: 4-3-2011 is modified with
direction to the defendant in OS 202 of 2005 to let in
evidence by 21-03-2011.
For all practical purposes, the trial Court reviewed its
order dated 04-03-2011 without there being an application.
It is only typographical and clerical mistakes, that can be
corrected by the Courts, on their own accord.  When a written
order, brief or long, is passed with a definite purport, the
Court cannot review, it in the absence of the application by
the aggrieved party.
Even on merits, the order under revision cannot be
sustained.  The record discloses that the 4th respondent is
supporting the case of his parents-respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The 1st petitioner figured as defendant in both the suits.
Therefore, it is essential and mandatory that the evidence on
the side of the plaintiffs in both the suits must be recorded at
a stretch and only thereafter the evidence on behalf of the petitioners must be recorded.
The course of action adopted
by the trial Court runs contrary to the letter and spirit of Order 18 CPC.
The C.R.P accordingly allowed

2014 - july-part- http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11668

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1070 OF 2011    
       
11-07-2014

Smt. T. Ushasri and another... PETITIONERS

Smt. R.J. Lakshmi Devi ands ix others RESPONDENTS    

Counsel for the Petitioner:   Sri M.V. Durga Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Rajanna and
                              Sri T. Narayana

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

       
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1070 OF 2011    
       
Dated:11-07-2014

ORDER:


      Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.S No. 202 of 2005 in
the Court of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad against their daughter, the 1st petitioner;
son-in-law, the 2nd petitioner and the Jubilee Hills
Cooperative Society, the 3rd respondent herein for the relief of
declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule
property and to cancel the sale deed dated 15-09-1987
executed in favour of the 1st petitioner, by declaring it as void.
The 4th respondent herein, the son of respondent Nos.1 and 2
filed O.S No. 130 of 2006 against his parents, his sisters i.e.,
the 1st petitioner and respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 for partition
and separate possession of that very item of the property.
Both the suits were clubbed.  The evidence of respondent
Nos.1 and 2 was recorded in O.S No. 202 of 2005.  When the
necessity has arisen for recording of further evidence, the trial
Court passed an order dated 04-03-2011 directing that the
evidence of plaintiff in O.S No. 130 of 2006 i.e., the 4th
respondent shall be recorded and for that purpose, the suits
were adjourned to 14-03-2011.  However, on 16-03-2011, the
trial Court modified order dated 04-03-2011 and directed that
the defendants in O.S No. 202 of 2005 i.e, the petitioners
herein shall commence their evidence.  The said order is
challenged in this revision.

      Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the 4th respondent i.e., the plaintiff
in O.S No. 130 of 2006 is sailing with his parents-respondent
Nos.1 and 2 who filed O.S No. 202 of 2005 and realising that
there is commonality not only in the parties, but also the
schedule property, both the suits were clubbed; and it is but
natural that the parties having common interest, irrespective
of their place in the cause title of the respective suits, must be
required to depose on one side; and as a matter of fact, the
trial Court took such a view in its order dated 04-03-2011.
He contends that the order dated 16-03-2011 passed by the
trial Court, modifying its earlier order dated 04-03-2011,
cannot be sustained either on substantive or procedural
basics.  He submits that the course of action indicated by the
trial Court through the order under revision would enable the
4th respondent to fill the lacunae, if any, in the evidence of his
parents-respondent Nos.1 and 2 or to otherwise weaken the
case of the petitioners.

      Sri K. Rajanna and Sri T. Narayana, learned counsel for
the respondents on the other hand submit that though the
suits are clubbed together, the reliefs claimed in the suits are
totally different and independent of each other and in that
view of the matter, it is essential that the recording of
evidence is also separate.  They submit that the trial Court
has corrected the mistake committed by it on 04-03-2011.

      The brief purport of two suits has been furnished in the
preceding paragraphs.  While respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed
the suit for declaration of their right in respect of the entire
suit schedule property and for cancellation of the sale deed
executed in favour of the 1st respondent, their son-the 4th
respondent filed the suit for partition.  There is indeed
overlapping of claims in both the suits and obviously, for that
reason, they were clubbed.

      Once the suits are clubbed, it is essential that such of
the parties in the suits, so clubbed, as are pursuing one
line, must be directed to depose at one instance whether or
not they figure in the same fashion in the suits as parties.
Keeping this in view that the trial Court passed the order on
04-03-2011 as under:
      Since the plaintiff in OS 130 of 2006 evidence not
recorded to record the evident of Plaintiff in OS. 130 of
2006.  Call on 14-03-2011.


      If any of the respondents are aggrieved by this course of
action, they ought to have pursued the remedies vis--vis the
order.  Nothing of that sort has taken place.  However, on its
own accord, the trial Court passed an order on 16-03-2011 as
under:
      The earlier order dated: 4-3-2011 is modified with
direction to the defendant in OS 202 of 2005 to let in
evidence by 21-03-2011.

      For all practical purposes, the trial Court reviewed its
order dated 04-03-2011 without there being an application.
It is only typographical and clerical mistakes, that can be
corrected by the Courts, on their own accord.  When a written
order, brief or long, is passed with a definite purport, the
Court cannot review, it in the absence of the application by
the aggrieved party.

      Even on merits, the order under revision cannot be
sustained.  The record discloses that the 4th respondent is
supporting the case of his parents-respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The 1st petitioner figured as defendant in both the suits.
Therefore, it is essential and mandatory that the evidence on
the side of the plaintiffs in both the suits must be recorded at
a stretch and only thereafter the evidence on behalf of the
petitioners must be recorded.  The course of action adopted
by the trial Court runs contrary to the letter and spirit of
Order 18 CPC.

      The C.R.P accordingly allowed and the order under
revision is set aside.  It is directed that the trial Court shall
record the evidence of the plaintiffs in O.S No. 202 of 2005,
the plaintiff in O.S No.130 of 2006 and such of the
defendants in that suit as are supporting the case of the
plaintiff at one stretch and thereafter record the evidence of
the petitioners.

      The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall
also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________    
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
11h July, 2014

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.

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.

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