relief granted - beyond the prayer of petition - not valid =the prayer in I.A.No.1108 of 2015 is for production of some documents and the 1 st respondent has stated no objection to allow the application filed by the petitioner, on the condition that votes polled ballot papers are also called for. The Court below not only allowed the application for production of documents mentioned in the petition, but also called for the votes polled ballot papers, though it is not the prayer of the petitioner. If the 1 st respondent wants production of votes polled ballot paper, he should have made an independent application making out a case in support of the same. But he cannot seek such a relief in the petition filed by the petitioner. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of production of votes polled ballot papers.

CRP 1433 / 2016
CRPSR 7782 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
D C J BASHA, KURNOOL DIST  VSD SHAMSHER BASHA, KURNOOL DIST & 6 OTHERS


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1433 of 2016
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 22-01- 2016 passed in I.A.No.1108 of 2015 in E.OP.NO.1 of 2014, wherein the Court below allowed the application filed by the petitioner filed under Order 16 Rule 1 and Section 151 C.P.C. for production of documents mentioned therein, so also votes polled ballot papers of for Sarpanch elections of Grama Panchayat, Gadivemula village.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondents have not filed any application but still the relief is granted by the Court below beyond the prayer made by the petitioner in their application for production of documents, which is impermissible. He also contends that in the application filed by the petitioner, the 1 st respondent cannot seek relief.
Heard learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, who submits that powers under Section 151 C.P.C are wide enough to grant any relief in the interest of justice.
In this case, it is to be seen that the prayer in I.A.No.1108 of 2015 is for production of some documents and the 1 st respondent has stated no objection to allow the application filed by the petitioner, on the condition that votes polled ballot papers are also called for. 
The Court below not only allowed the application for production of documents mentioned in the petition, but also called for the votes polled ballot papers, though it is not the prayer of the petitioner. If the 1 st respondent wants production of votes polled ballot paper, he should have made an independent application making out a case in support of the same. 
But he cannot seek such a relief in the petition filed by the petitioner. 
In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of production of votes polled ballot papers. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, it is open for the 1 st respondent to make independent application, if he wants votes polled ballot papers to be produced. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. _________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J 25-04-2016 nvl

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