Allowed

Mavilla Saritha v. Mavilla Madhusudhan Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Feb 2020CRP/3175/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court held that condoning delay under Section 5 Limitation Act for Order XX Rule 9 CPC applications is maintainable as there is no bar under the Code. Revision petitions were allowed, impugned orders set aside, and matters remanded to the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matters remanded to Trial Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Mavilla Saritha Vs Mavilla Madhusudhan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶3

Civil Revision Petition No. 3175 of 2019 Civil Revision Petition No. 3326 of 2019 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 499 of 2019

¶4

COMMON ORDER : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶5

The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed assailing the Order, dated 06.08.2019, wherein, the learned Judge dismissed the I.A. No. 50 of 2019 filed in O.S. No. 93 of 2017 on the ground that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing an application under Order XX Rule 9 of C.P.C. to set-aside the abatement order, is not maintainable.

¶6

1. In-spite of service of notice, there is no representation on

¶7

behalf of the Respondents.

¶8

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶9

We are of the view that the reasons given by the learned Judge rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as not maintainable appears to be totally erroneous. In-fact, an application under Section 5 alone would lie in seeking condonation of delay in making an application under Order XX Rule 9 of C.P.C., in the absence of any bar under the Code.

¶10

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed . Consequently, the C.M.A. No. 499 of 2019 filed against the Order rejecting an application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C., to restore the Suit which was dismissed for default, is restored and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court.

¶11

¶12

1. In view of the Orders passed in above cases, C.R.P. No. 3326 of 2019 is allowed and the order impugned is set-aside, consequently the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶13

1. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

________________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶15

_____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶16

Date: 28.02.2019 SM.

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶19

AND

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶21

Civil Revision Petition No. 3175 of 2019 Civil Revision Petition No. 3326 of 2019 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 499 of 2019

¶22

( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶23

Date: 28.02.2019

¶24

SM.

Mavilla Saritha v. Mavilla Madhusudhan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mavilla Saritha v. Mavilla Madhusudhan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P Manjula Vs Shriram Chits Union Finance Limited

Kodali Sireesha Vs Kodali Vidya Sagar

Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., Vs Pragya River Bridge Developers Ltd.

C.C.E and C.C Visakhapatnam-I Vs M/S Srivalli Shipping and Transportpvt Ltd.

C.C.E, and C.C- Visakhapatnam I Vs M/s Srivalli Shipping and Transport Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs M/S.Gmr Industries Ltd.