Allowed

Grandhi Subrahmanyam v. Yalamarthi Venkata Narayana Murthy

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Aug 2019CRP/7508/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against a summary dismissal of an application by a third party seeking permission to file and mark rent documents for an ill defendant, on the condition of filing a deposit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned docket order dated 05.10.2018 was set aside; I.A.No.1587 of 2018 in O.S.No.107 of 2013 was allowed conditionally on the deposit of Rs.2,000/-.

Grandhi Subrahmanyam Vs Yalamarthi Venkata… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.7508 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This civil revision petition is filed by the third party, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the docket order dated 05.10.2018 by virtue of which the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, dismissed I.A.No.1587 of 2018 in O.S.No.107 of 2013, which was filed by the revision petitioner, under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) and Sections 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to permit him to file certain documents on behalf of the defendant and mark the same.

¶4

Heard the counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent, in spite of service of notice.

¶5

The Court below dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner, in his affidavit, did not mention any reason for non–filing of the documents by the defendant along with the written statement. But, a perusal of the affidavit would show that the petitioner is none other than the brother’s son of the defendant. The defendant is seriously ill and the petitioner, having acquaintance with the facts of the case, has filed the affidavit seeking permission to file and mark the documents on behalf of the defendant, in proof of payment of rents to the plaintiff, in connection with R.C.C. No.77 of 1994.

¶6

¶7

Hence, from the above facts, it can be understood that the reasons for the delay are mentioned in the affidavit. In view of the same, this Court opines that in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, to get the documents marked in support of his case, the impugned order requires interference.

¶8

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the docket order dated 05.10.2018 passed I.A.No.1587 of 2018. Consequently, I.A.No.1587 of 2018 in O.S.No.107 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram is allowed, on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the respondent-plaintiff and deposit the same in the lower Court on or before 29.8.2019, failing which the impugned order shall stand confirmed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶9

______________ T. RAJANI, J

¶10

August 08, 2019 YS

Grandhi Subrahmanyam v. Yalamarthi Venkata Narayana Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Grandhi Subrahmanyam v. Yalamarthi Venkata Narayana Murthy

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

Dandu Appala Raju Vs Mylapalli Tata Rao

Sri Kakarla Rajendra Prasad Vs The Authorized Officer [Land Reforms]

Konda Bhavani Sankar Lingam Vs Nalluri Uma Pallavi

Bukka Chakri Naik, and Another, Vs the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Ins., Proddutur, and Another

M. Sivasankar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Poluru Rajnikanth , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and Another