Posts

Showing posts from July, 2016

Crl.M.P. in M.C. filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte order dated 16.7.2011.- Trial court dismissed the application = Their Lordships held that The trial Court is directed to set aside the impugned ex parte order on payment of Rs.10,000/- towards costs to the respondents 1 to 3 herein and to restore the M.C., hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos.1 and 3 towards maintenance.

CRLRC 325 / 2016
CRLRCSR 22959 / 2015CASE IS:DISPOSEDPETITIONERRESPONDENTBOLLIMUNTHA MOHANA VENKATESWARA RAO  VSBOLLIMUNTHA LAKSHMI & 3 OTHERSPET.ADV. : SUBRAHMANYAMRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL
REVISION CASE No.325 OF 2016
ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur dated 26.02.2015, whereby the learned Judge dismissed Crl.M.P.No.1729 of 2014 in M.C.No.3 of 2011 filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte order dated 16.7.2011. Even after service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.
 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the material on record.
In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the revision can be disposed of with the following direction: The trial Court is directed to set aside the impugned ex parte order on payment of Rs.10,000/- towards…

Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court below seeking to give interim custody of the case property i.e., goods carrier vehicle bearing No.AP29 TB 6900 = even though the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, no prejudice would caused for investigation if the vehicle is released for interim custody. Therefore, it is directed that the goods carrier vehicle bearing No.AP29 TB 6900, shall be released for interim custody of the petitioner, subject to final orders to be passed in the main case, on petitioner executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri and also on production of original R.C. book. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle, shall not change the physical features of the same till the disposal of the criminal case and further the petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court. However, it is made clear that the present order will not stand in the way of any confiscation proceedings. If already confiscation orders are passed, the order need not be given effect to.

CRLRC 277 / 2016
CRLRCSR 3188 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSEDPETITIONERRESPONDENTBHANOTHU BHUKYA, NALGONDA DT.,  VSTHE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP.,PET.ADV. : SREENIVASULURESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.277 of 2016
ORDER
The petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case by invoking the provisions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the docket order dated 19.01.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2016 in Crime No.14 of 2016 by the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.
2. Heard and perused the material available on record.
3. Petitioner herein filed the impugned application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court below seeking to give interim custody of the case property i.e., goods carrier vehicle bearing No.AP29 TB 6900, which was dismissed by the Court below vide impugned order. Challenging the same, present revision is filed. 
4. Learned c…

non-disposal of I.A.No.1083 of 2015 in O.S.No.197 of 2011 amounts to inaction = On 14.10.2015, the suit was dismissed for default, as there was no representation. Immediately, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1083 of 2015 on 15.10.2015 itself under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. to restore the suit setting aside the order of dismissal for default. It is the contention of the petitioner that on account of dismissal of the suit for injunction, the respondents herein are trying to dispossess him from the schedule property, which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The trial Court, despite reporting readiness by the petitioner to proceed with the hearing of the said I.A., is not taking up the matter. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court can exercise its power to keep the subordinate Courts within the limits.

CRP 440 / 2016
CRPSR 1977 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSEDPETITIONERRESPONDENTMS BHANU TRADERS, NIZAMABAD  VSM/S. KATARI INDUSTRIES, NIZAMABAD & 5 OTHERS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.440 OF 2016
ORDER:
This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the inaction of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nizamabad, in disposing of I.A.No.1083 of 2015 in O.S.No.197 of 2011 having dismissed the suit for default by order date 14.10.2015.
The petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court and he filed the suit for permanent injunction and the matter is being contested by the 1 st defendant.
On 14.10.2015, the suit was dismissed for default, as there was no representation. Immediately, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1083 of 2015 on 15.10.2015 itself under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. to restore the suit setting aside the order of dismissal for default. 
It is the contention of the petitioner that on account of dismissal of …

C.M.A. was dismissed - No appeal nor revision - these petitions again on the same grounds not maintainable = Even after filing of the suit belatedly, the petitioner failed to evince proper interest in pursuing the same, resulting in dismissal of the suit for default. He has also filed I.A. No.556 of 2008 for restoration of the said suit. Even the said I.A. was also dismissed for default. The petitioner has failed to show diligence in pursuing the subsequent I.A., i.e. I.A. No.777 of 2010 filed for restoration of I.A. No.556 of 2008, by not paying batta. Another interesting aspect is that the petitioner has filed a civil miscellaneous appeal, i.e., C.M.A. No.33 of 2013 before the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, purportedly questioning the order in I.A. No.1156 of 2011, instead of the order in I.A. No.1155 of 2011. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, holding that appeal does not lie against an order dismissing the application filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, as on today, no appeal against the order in I.A.No.1155 of 2011, is filed by the petitioner. Even if the present revision petition is allowed in favour of the petitioner, the same will not enure to his benefit, as the order in I.A. No.1155 of 2011 remained unchallenged

CRP 168 / 2016
CRPSR 29025 / 2014CASE IS:DISPOSEDPETITIONERRESPONDENTTATINENI VIJAYA BHASKAR RAO  VSK ARUNA & ANOTHERPET.ADV. : NAGENDRA REDDYRESP.ADV. : PEDDA BABU

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.168 OF 2016 DATED:22-01-2016
Between: Tatineni Vijaya Bhaskar Rao … Petitioner
And
K. Aruna and another … Respondents
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: - COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2: Mr. G. Ramachandra Rao, for Mr. G. Pedda Babu
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of common order dt.07.06.2013 in I.A. Nos.1155 and 1156 of 2011 in I.A. No.777 of 2010 in I.A. No.556 of 2008 in O.S. No.136 of 2003, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. 
I have heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel, representing Mr. G. Pedda Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner has filed the above m…

Order XXIII Rule 1 applies to the interlocutory applications also.= Order XXIII Rule 1 applies to suit, but I feel that the principle underlying the same is based on public policy, as such, I do not see any reason for not applying the said principle to the interlocutory applications also. = petitioner filed petition under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC to implead him as 7th respondent/7th defendant in the place of 1st respondent/1st defendant to contest the proceedings as a legatee under the Will.= The 1st defendant died on 05.11.2011 due to old age and on her death, the Will dated 29.09.2010 came into operation and he became the legatee of the will and became absolute owner of his mother estate i.e., half share of the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent/plaintiff knowing fully well, have filed a memo stating that she is only legal heir and already succeeded to the half share of his mother. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has no manner of right, title and interest against the property and sought to implead him as 7th respondent/7th defendant to contest the proceedings as a legatee.= But at the same, in the instant case, petitioner cannot maintain the present application for the same cause of action after withdrawal of I.A.No.1 of 2012 filed by him, that too, without obtaining permission to institute the present application. Though the present application is not hit by the principles of res judicata, but whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will forego the same. In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason, the Code insists that he should obtain the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in Rule 1(3) of the Order XXIII. The principle underlying the above rule is founded on public policy as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P.Gwalior (supra). Though the above said decision was rendered in the context of suit proceedings, but the said principle was made applicable to writ proceedings also, since the same is founded on public policy. Though Order XXIII Rule 1 applies to suit, but I feel that the principle underlying the same is based on public policy, as such, I do not see any reason for not applying the said principle to the interlocutory applications also. In the instant case, the trial Court was right in holding that a fresh interlocutory application is not maintainable before it, in respect of the same subject matter since the earlier interlocutory application had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh application.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY          

Civil Revision Petition No.27 of 2016

Dated 02-06-2016

B.Venkata Laxmamma, Died by LR B.Koteswara Rao... PETITIONER      

VERSUS  

Smt. N.Janakamma and others....RESPONDENTS      

Counsel for the Petitioner:  Sri C.Prakash Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents:Sri O.Manoher Reddy.

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred
1.(2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 655
2 2012 Law Suit (Ker) 1734
3 2012 (6) ALT 537
4 (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 521
5 (1987) 1 Supreme Court Cases 5



HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY            

C.R.P. No. 27 OF 2016

ORDER :

         This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order in
I.A.No.62 of 2013 in I.A.No.141 of 2004 in O.S.No.41 of 1981
dated 30.10.2015, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner
under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of CPC for impleading him
as 7th respondent/7th defendant in the place of 1st respondent/1st
defendant in the proceedings as a legatee under the Will was
dismissed…

Order 19 Rule 2 of CPC to direct the 1st respondent/1st defendant to appear before the court to cross-examine - not maintainable - Order XIX Rule 2 CPC, which reads as under: Power to order attendance of deponent for cross-examination: (1) Upon any application evidence may be given by affidavit, but the Court may, at the instance of either party, order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent. (2) Such attendance shall be in Court, unless the deponent is exempted from personal appearance in Court or the Court otherwise directs.=The Court below by relying on the judgment reported in Shetty Chandra Shekar and others v. Neeti Ramulu and others (supra) dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the deponents of third party affidavits filed in support of plaintiff or defendant can be called for cross-examination but not the affidavit filed by either the plaintiff or the defendant to the proceedings. The Court below also relied on the judgment reported in the case of Smt. Sudha and another v. Manmohan and others , wherein it is held that the request for cross examination of the defendant cannot be allowed if such request could be to protract and delay the proceedings under the main suit. The Court below has rightly relied on the judgment in Shetty Chandra Shekers case and came to the conclusion that the application under Order XIX Rule 2 CPC is not maintainable in respect of the affidavits filed by parties to proceedings and it will apply to the affidavits filed by third parties. In view of above facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY            

C.R.P.No.2046 OF 2016  

03-06-2016

Pathange Mohan Krishna Rao   .Petitioner/Defendant no.4

Smt Navale Sreevani and others ..Respondents  

Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri K/Rasthangapani Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents:

<GEST

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases Referred:

1. 2013(2) ALT 784
2. 2015 (4) ALT 665
3. 2008 (2) ALT 463
4. 1983 (1) ALT 39=AIT 1983 AP 14
5. 2001 (6) SCC 356=AIR 2001 SC 2293  
6. AIR 1996 Raj 59

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY            

C.R.P.No.2046 OF 2016  

ORDER :

        This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated
14.03.2016 in I.A.No.206 of 2016 in I.A.No.3812 of 2015 in
O.S.No.88 of 2015, wherein the Court below dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner/4th defendant in the suit
under Order 19 Rule 2 of CPC to direct the 1st respondent/1st
defendant to appear before the court to cross-examine her to
elicit the truth in the contents of her affidavit filed in
I.A.No.3812 of…

Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure = suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the respondents.for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localize the survey numbers 52, 53 and 54 on land along with sub- divisions therein as shown in the plaint plan, and also to localize the extent of Acs.3.50 cents in Sy. No.52/1-B1 on land, with the assistance of District Surveyor and total station instrument, and with the help of municipal survey records and other documents produced by them into the Court and the documents produced by the defendants, and also to arrange for taking necessary photographs and videos.= Under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the main purpose of appointing an Advocate Commissioner is to elucidate any matter in dispute. It does not appear from the pleadings of the parties that the identity of the property is in dispute and therefore the question of localizing the property does not arise. It is therefore wholly unnecessary for the petitioner to seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Being the plaintiff, the burden is on him to prove his case by producing required evidence and he cannot seek to rely upon the help of an Advocate Commissioner for this purpose. Unless he has material in his possession to show that he has title over the suit schedule property, he should not have filed the suit at all. If, for any reason, the petitioner wants to establish the identity of the property with reference to the boundaries mentioned in the documents on ground, he is always entitled to seek survey of the property by approaching the survey officials on his own, and produce the survey reports and examine the surveyor concerned as his witness. Instead of following this procedure, the petitioner appeared to have devised a shortcut method of filing the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. This, in my opinion, surely is not the purpose for which the Advocate Commissioner is appointed. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court and the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY            

Civil Revision Petition No.2651 of 2016

10-06-2016

K.Sambasiva Reddy  Petitioner

Challa Rama Rao Reddy and others  Respondents    

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Sridhar

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Mr. S.V.R. Subrahmanyam  
                                     Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 56:    -

<GIST  :


>HEAD NOTE:  


?CITATIONS :

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY          


CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2651 OF 2016    


DATED:10-06-2016  


THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:        


ORDER:

        This civil revision petition is filed against order dt.21.4.2016 in I.A.
No.1501 of 2015 in O.S. No.107 of 2013, on the file of the II Additional
District Judge, Visakhapatnam.
        I have heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Mr. S.V.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2,
and perused the record.
        The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit for de…

Respondent can not force the petitioner to implead joint tortfeasors as one of the parties to the M.V.O.P. = Now the law is well settled that the liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. In case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation among tort feasors vis--vis claimant is not permissible. Admittedly, the petitioner is an insurer of the vehicle. The liability of the petitioner is coextensive with that of the owner/insured. It is the primary duty of the claimants to establish negligence and justify their claim. It is for the claimants to file the claim petition against the parties whom they consider as proper or necessary. Now the petitioner, in its written statement, pointed out that there are other parties who are to be impleaded in the claim petition filed by the claimants. In spite of the point raised by the petitioner herein in its written statement, if the claimants do not take necessary steps, they will be doing so at their own risk. It is not for the petitioner herein to force the claimants or the Court to implead some other parties in order to invite a finding on the role of the proposed party in the negligence which resulted in the accident. There is no material to show that the proposed parties are joint tort feasors. Even if it is assumed that some of the proposed parties are joint tort feasors, in their absence also a finding can be recorded with regard to the entitlement of the claimants and the petitioner herein can recover the amount which it was forced to part with due to the role of other joint tort feasors by initiating separate proceedings. But, the summary proceedings in a claim petition arising out of a motor vehicle accident cannot be enlarged and the Tribunal cannot be asked to give a finding with respect to the role of other parties in the accident. The reliance on United India Insurance Company Limited's case (supra) is of no avail as that case arose out of an accident caused by Jayanthi Janatha Express hitting a passenger bus at the unmanned level crossing. The decision was rendered on the facts of that case only and it cannot be extended to the authorities like National Highways Authority of India Limited who undertake laying of the roads.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.427 of 2016 and Batch  

Dated 29-04-2016

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd......Petitioner  

vs.

Smt.Khawjabi and others.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: Learned Senior Counsel Sri Atul Nanda for A.Ramakrishna Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.Sanjay Kishore

<Gist :

>Head Note :

?Cases referred
1.(2007) 5 SCC 428
2.(2008) 13 SCC 198
3.(2008) 3 SCC 748
4.(2014) 3 SCC 590
5.(2015) 9 SCC 273
6.(2010) 7 SCC 417
7.AIR 1998 SC 640

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.427 and 772 of 2016  

COMMON ORDER:                                          

        These two Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by
this common order, at the admission stage, as they arise out of
the applications in O.P.No.599 of 2013 on the file of the learned
Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar, seeking identical
reliefs.

        C.R.P.No.427 of 2016 arises out of an order in I.A.No.1309
of 2014, …

Section 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Rent Control Act, bona-fide requirement - sublet the premises without permission , = On being shown Ex.P7 photographs, and on being asked whether the persons on the northern side of Ex.P7 Photograph, were the sub-lessees doing business, RW.1 stated that Saheli Suits was a shop run by him as its owner; and on Sundays he only opens his shop, but he did not know who was doing business in front of his shop on either side. As the respondent-tenant, in his evidence affidavit, had stated that he was carrying on business in the name and style of R.S. Enterprises, it is evident that Saheli Suits was not the name of his shop, and the business being carried on in the name and style of Saheli Suits, in the subject property, was by a third party and not the respondent-tenant. No evidence was adduced by the respondent-tenant to establish that Saheli Suits was a partnership firm of which he was a partner. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, that the respondent-tenant had sublet the premises to Saheli Suits without permission of the petitioners-landlords, is based on the evidence on record, and does not necessitate interference in revision proceedings under Section 22 of the Act. Both on the ground of bona-fide requirement, and on the ground that the respondent-tenant had sublet the premises without permission of the petitioners-landlords, both the Courts below were justified in directing his eviction from the subject premises. The order under revision does not necessitate interference.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2521 OF 2016    

08-07-2016

Cheela Narayanarao and another..Petitioners

R.Ajay Kumar. Respondent  

Counsel for petitioners: Sri J. Prabhakar, Learned Counsel
                          appearing on behalf of Sri J. Venkateswara Reddy

Counsel for respondent: Sri Manu

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Citations:

1)(1990) 4 SCC 286
2)(1995) 6 SCC 580
3)AIR 1994 Delhi 212
4)(2002) 6 SCC 1 = AIR 2002 SC 2562
5)AIR 1988 SC 1365
6)(2006) 1 ALT 103 (DB) = 2006 (1) LS 54
7)AIR 2008 (NOC) 1341 (Mad.)


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2521 of 2016  

ORDER:                        

        Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Chief Judge,
City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RA No.192 of 2015 dated
06.04.2016, dismissing the appeal preferred by the respondent-
tenant against the order of the Additional Rent Control,
Secunderabad in RC No.112 of 2013 dated …