Allowed

K Sivaraja Naidu v. D Subbarayudu

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Oct 2019CRP/578/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the High Court reviewed the trial court's order allowing a set-aside application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which was initially made conditional upon depositing one-third of the suit amount. The Court allowed the application without costs after modifying the condition.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.501 of 2017 allowed without costs; condition of depositing one-third of suit amount dispensed with; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

K Sivaraja Naidu Vs D Subbarayudu — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.578 of 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, aggrieved by the condition vide order dated 23.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.501 of 2017 in O.S.No.27 of 2014 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in I.A.No.500 of 2017 in O.S.No.27 of 2014, which is to be effect that the petition is allowed subject to compliance of order in I.A.No.501 of 2017 in O.S.No.27 of 2014.

¶4

2. Heard both the learned counsel.

¶5

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of suit amount of Rs.53,01,070/based on four promissory notes for Rs.1,50,000/on 01.11.2011, Rs.3,75,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- on 06.11.2011 and Rs.25,20,000/- on 09.02.2012 respectively alleged to be executed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement stating that the respondent approached the petitioner in the year 2010 for purchasing house plot. The petitioner agreed to sell house plot to the respondent and the respondent paid some advance to the petitioner and the petitioner executed the sale agreement in favour of the respondent. Some delay occurred in registering the house plot to the respondent. The respondent approached the petitioner in the month of May, 2011

¶6

¶7

and requested him to return the advance amount. The petitioner calculated interest upto date and returned the advance amount to the respondent. The respondent returned the sale agreement executed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent was completed. The petitioner has taken specific plea in the written statement stating that the suit promissory notes are created documents by the respondent and they are not supported by any consideration.

¶8

The petitioner was set exparte and exparte decree was passed on 22.06.2017 on the ground that neither the petitioner nor his counsel attended the Court on that day. The petitioner filed I.A.No.500 of 2017 in O.S.No.27 of 2014 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 44 days in filing the set aside petition along with I.A.No.501 of 2017 in O.S.No.27 of 2014 under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte decree dated 22.06.2017.

¶9

According to the petitioner, the delay was due to his illhealth and more over, his counsel had been to USA. The petitioner impugned the trial Court’s order in condoning the delay subject to compliance of order in I.A.No.501 of 2017 in O.S.No.27 of 2014, which is to the effect that he shall deposit 1/3^rd of the suit amount.

¶10

This Court as per order passed in C.R.P.No.650 of 2019 has modified the condition imposed in I.A.No.501 of 2017 in

¶11

¶12

O.S.No.27 of 2014. In view of the same, I.A.No.501 of 2017 is allowed without costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶15

Dated 01.10.2019 SPR

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶18

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.578 of 2019

¶19

Dated 01.10.2019 SPR

K Sivaraja Naidu v. D Subbarayudu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Sivaraja Naidu v. D Subbarayudu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makineni Amarasimham, Vs v Vinaychand

Alluri Sarojini Devi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Suraparaju Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Sivaraja Naidu Vs M Satya

Kovuri Sivaraja Naidu Vs Golla Sudakar

Kavuri Sivaraju Naidu Vs Golla Sudakar