Dismissed

Godudu Mehaboob v. S.Md. Jafar Saheb

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Dec 2022CRP/1031/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court's decision to extend time for complying with Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) CPC. The higher court held that under the Supreme Court directive, the condonation was lawful.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; the trial court was directed to dispose of the inquire application within one month.

Godudu Mehaboob Vs S.Md. Jafar Saheb — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.1031 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner/1^st defendant is directed against the orders, dated 05.08.2021, allowing I.A.No.105 of 2021 in I.A.No.86 of 2021 in O.S.No.171 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, by which the petition filed under Sections 148 & 151 CPC was allowed by extending the time by ten (10) days for complying Order XXXIX Rule 3 (a) CPC.

¶5

2. Heard Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/1^st defendant and Sri B.Suryanarayana , learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/plaintiff.

¶6

3. The revision petitioner is the 1^st defendant. The 1^st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd defendant. The 2^nd respondent is shown as not necessary party to this revision petition.

¶7

4 . The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction and along with the suit, I.A.No.86 of 2021 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking interim temporary injunction. On 22.06.2021, while granting ex parte temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants, the trial

¶8

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1031 of 2021

¶9

¶10

Court directed the petitioner to comply with the provision of Order XXXIX Rule 3 (a) CPC and posted the matter to 02.07.2021. Since the petitioner did not comply the condition within the period stipulated under Order XXXIX Rule 3 (a) CPC, petition in I.A.No.105 of 2021 was filed on 06.07.2021 stating that the petitioner was suffering from viral fever, as the Covid-19 pandemic was continuing, the petitioner could not get medical aid and consult the counsel within the time, and thereby, the direction could be complied only on 02.07.2021 and the affidavit showing compliance has been filed. The said petition was allowed by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Re Cognizance for Extension of

¶11

Limitation¹ , wherein the period of limitation in filing petitions/ applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings, irrespective of the period of limitation prescribed under the general or special law was extended. However, the Court noticed that it is mandatory to comply with the provision under Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) CPC, but in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the delay can be condoned.

¶12

5 . Having been aggrieved of the said order, the present revision is filed by the revision petitioner/1^st defendant.

¶13

1 2021 (3) ALT 302

¶14

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1031 of 2021

¶15

¶16

6 . Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since the condition prescribed is mandatory, the same cannot be extended by applying Section 148 or Section 151 CPC.

¶17

7 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/ plaintiff submit that in the ordinary course, time cannot be extended, but in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, in all cases, where any general or special law prescribes limitation or provides period for any action to be taken either before judicial or quasi judicial proceeding and where such period condonable or not is extended, and therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error.

¶18

8. In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (1 supra), it

¶19

was held as follows:

¶20

“3. Thereafter on March 8, 2021 it was noticed that the country is returning to normalcy and since all the courts and Tribunals have' started functioning either physically or by virtual mode, extension of limitation was regulated and brought to an end. The suo motu proceedings were, thus, disposed of issuing the following directions:

¶21

In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from March 15, 2020 till March 14, 2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on March 15, 2020 if any, shall become available with effect from March 15, 2021.

¶22

In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between March 15, 2020 till March 14, 2021 notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from March 15, 2021. In the event the actual balance

¶23

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1031 of 2021

¶24

¶25

period of limitation remaining, with effect from March 15, 2021 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

¶26

The period from March 15, 2020 till March 14, 2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed Under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or Tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

¶27

xx xx xx

¶28

xx xx xx

¶29

xx xx xx

¶30

We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in covid-19 virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it has engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation caused by the sudden and second outburst of covid-19 virus, thus, requires extraordinary measures to minimize the hardship of the litigant-public in all the States. We, therefore, restore the order dated March 23, 2020 and in continuation of the order dated March 8, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders.

¶31

It is further clarified that the period from March 14, 2021 till further orders shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed Under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or Tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.”

¶32

9 . There is no dispute about the mandatory nature of the

¶33

provision under Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) CPC, but, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, which the trial Court relied upon, no

¶34

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1031 of 2021

¶35

¶36

separate application even is required, however, in view of the said decision, as a matter of caution, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the petition and the same has been rightly allowed by the trial Court. As such, there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the trial Court.

¶37

10 . In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the request made, the trial Court is directed to expeditiously take up the interlocutory application for inquiry and dispose of the same, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J

¶41

09-12-2022 RAR

Godudu Mehaboob v. S.Md. Jafar Saheb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Godudu Mehaboob v. S.Md. Jafar Saheb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kovvuri Nagi Reddy Vs Mudunuri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju

Sykam Samrajyam, Vs Viswanadhapalli Papa

K. Neelavathi Vs J. Maheshwari

Anandam Srinivas Vs Anandam Krishna Kumari

Nagoji Srinivasa Rao Vs Mokkapati Vijaya Lakshmi

Nagoji Srinivasa Rao Vs Mokkapati Vijaya Lakshmi