Dismissed

Bollu Venkata Siva Satyanarayana v. Madhyanapu Ramakrishna Das

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Dec 2021CRP/1208/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposes of two civil revision petitions filed by a land-owner against a plaintiff seeking specific performance of a sale agreement. The plaintiff had previously been ex parte dismissed and later filed IAs to set aside the orders. The trial court allowed setting aside one ex parte order. This court issues a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months,

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower court to dispose suit within 3 months; dismissal of suit if plaintiff fails to cooperate; closed pending miscellaneous petitions.

Bollu Venkata Siva Satyanarayana Vs Madhyanapu… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

C.R.P.No.2678 of 2019 and 1208 of 2021

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

The 1^st respondent in these two revision petitions had filed O.S.No.39 of 2006 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08.05.2004 against the defendants in the said suit. The suit was dismissed for default on 15.09.2011. Subsequently, the plaintiff in the suit had filed I.A.No.1293 of 2011 for setting aside the ex parte order of dismissal. This application was also dismissed for default on 04.06.2013 and the plaintiff again filed I.A.No.606 of 2013 for setting aside the said ex parte order. This application was allowed by the trial Court on 12.07.2019.

¶5

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein had filed C.R.P.No.2678 of 2019. As no stay was granted in the said C.R.P., I.A.No.1293 of 2011 was taken up by the trial Court and allowed on 06.01.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed C.R.P.No.1208 of 2021.

¶6

As both these revision petitions relate to the same issue, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶7

Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both these revision petitions, submits that the trial Court ought to have dismissed both the applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff, as no bona fides had been demonstrated by the respondent/plaintiff in either of these applications. He further submits that the entire blame in these applications has been thrown on a junior advocate, without making out any bona fide reasons for setting aside the ex parte orders passed by the trial Court. He further submits that the respondent/plaintiff is not interested in pursuing the suit and is only

¶8

RRR,J 2 C.R.P.No.2678 of 2019 And C.R.P.No.1208 of 2021

¶9

dragging on the suit, due to which the property belonging to the petitioner and other defendants in the suit is being tied up in the litigation, which is detrimental to the interests of the petitioner and other defendants in the suit.

¶10

Heard Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶11

A perusal of the pleadings in the applications filed before the trial Court and the orders of the trial Court would show that the trial Court has taken a liberal view of the entire matter and permitted the respondent/plaintiff to pursue the suit, so as to dispose of the suit on merits rather than on technicalities.

¶12

In the circumstances, it may not be appropriate for this Court to go into the sufficiency and credibility of the reasons set out in the applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff. However, the fact remains that the suit was filed in the year 2006 and has been dragging on for 13 years.

¶13

In the circumstances, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any failure on the part of the plaintiff in cooperating with the trial Court would result in dismissal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶15

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶16

9^th December, 2021 Js.

¶17

RRR,J 3 C.R.P.No.2678 of 2019 And C.R.P.No.1208 of 2021

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19

C.R.P.No.2678 of 2019 And C.R.P.No.1208 of 2021

¶20

9^th December, 2021

¶21

Js.

Bollu Venkata Siva Satyanarayana v. Madhyanapu Ramakrishna Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bollu Venkata Siva Satyanarayana v. Madhyanapu Ramakrishna Das

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

M.Murthaiah Vs Vajje Subbalakshmi

Vummethala Krishna Mohan, Hyd Vs Vummethala Madhu Mohan, Guntur Dist and 4 Others

Smt.Buridi Krishnaveni Vs Mudunnuru Bhavani

Lekkala Ananda Rao Vs Pedada Venkata Ramana

Polisetty Andalamma Vs Yarramsetti Punyavathi

Bollu Veera Raghavaiah Chowdary Vs Madyanapu Ramakrishna Das