Sec.5 - Delay of 59 days = An ex parte decree was passed on 12.03.2015 against the respondents/defendants. While so, the 7 th defendant and defendants 1 to 5 filed I.A.Nos.1473 and 1472 of 2015 respectively seeking condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the petitions under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. When the said applications were allowed by separate orders dated 18.01.2016, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. = The view taken by the lower Court applying pragmatic approach in condoning the delay of 59days, in my view, does not warrant interference. As this Court finds no irregularity in the orders of the trial Court in exercise of its discretion in condoning the delay of 59 days in filing the petitions for setting aside the ex parte decree, it is always open to the petitioner herein to take appropriate objections to the main applications filed by the defendants for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them and it is hoped that the trial Court would consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.


CRP 2035 / 2016
CRPSR 10406 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SARVEPALLI VENKATA RADHA KRISHNA  VSNARNE VENKATA SUBBAIAH & 6 OTHERS

 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  PRAKASAM


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
C.R.P.Nos.1969 and 2035 of 2016
COMMON ORDER:
1. These two Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same O.S.No.220 of 2006.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the said suit, which was filed for declaration in respect of the suit scheduled property and also for recovery of possession. An ex parte decree was passed on 12.03.2015 against the respondents/defendants. While so, the 7 th defendant and defendants 1 to 5 filed I.A.Nos.1473 and 1472 of 2015 respectively seeking condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the petitions under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. When the said applications were allowed by separate orders dated 18.01.2016, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.1473 of 2015, the 7 th defendant stated that the ex parte decree was erroneously passed on 12.03.2015 and he was temporarily living in Tirupathi on his employment and his advocate did not inform him about the ex parte decree. He came to know about the same when he enquired with his advocate. In the process, the delay of 59 days took place in filing the petition to set aside the said ex parte decree passed against him.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.1472 of 2015, the defendants 1 to 5 stated that they are all uneducated cultivators and they came to know about the ex parte decree when they met their advocate.
5. A detailed counter was filed touching the merits of the case and specifically stating that the defendants are having knowledge of the proceedings including passing of the ex parte decree on 12.03.2015.
6. The applications were allowed by an elaborate and separate orders and following certain binding decisions holding that though the defendants have not satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay, with a view to provide an opportunity to them to contest the suit, the delay was condoned on payment of costs.
7. The view taken by the lower Court applying pragmatic approach in condoning the delay of 59days, in my view, does not warrant interference. As this Court finds no irregularity in the orders of the trial Court in exercise of its discretion in condoning the delay of 59 days in filing the petitions for setting aside the ex parte decree, it is always open to the petitioner herein to take appropriate objections to the main applications filed by the defendants for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them and it is hoped that the trial Court would consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
8. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J 17-06-2016 Gsn

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.