Dismissed

Thayyuru Lakshmamma, v. Patan Usman Ali Khan

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Nov 2022CRP/138/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a Civil Revision Petition against a Trial Court order refusing an extension for a Succession Certificate. The High Court allows the Revision Petitioner to approach the Appellate Court for time extension and to file a petition for suit restoration.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file petition for time extension before Appellate Court and for suit restoration before Trial Court.

Thayyuru Lakshmamma, Vs Patan Usman… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶3

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.138 OF 2017

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

I have heard both sides.

¶6

This Civil Revision petition is filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs under section 115 of C.P.C against the orders passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur in I.A.337 of 2016 in O.S.No.62 of 2014, dated 19-09-2016 where in whereby learned Trial Judge returned the petition filed by the petitioner under section 148 of CPC. The Petitioners have filed Suit against Respondent for recovery of promissory note debt and at the first instance, the Suit was decreed and then the Respondent preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.54 of 2015 on the file of VII Addl.District Judge, Gudur. Then learned VII Addl.District Judge, Gudur has allowed Appeal suit filed by the Respondent/Defendant and remanded the Original suit to Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Gudur with a direction to receive the Succession Certificate and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one month. After receiving records from the first Appellate Court Petitioners/Plaintiffs have filed

¶7

¶8

petition in I.A.337 of 2016 for extension of one month time to produce Succession certificate which petition was returned by the learned Trial Judge by observing that the said Court has no power to grant time as requested by Petitioner when disposal time has been fixed by the Appellate court. After returning I.A.337 of 2016 the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on the same day ie., on 19.9.2016.

¶9

The petitioners filed Revision petition against the orders passed in I.A.337 of 2016 instead of filing petition before Appellate court seeking for enlargement of time for disposal of main suit. The learned counsel for Revision petitioner submitted that after disposal of the suit filed by the petitioners for not producing Succession certificate, the petitioners have got Succession certificate issued by Senior Civil Judge, Gudur on 28-10-2016. The learned counsel representing Respondents fairly admitted the said fact. The petitioners herein instead of approaching Appellate Court for seeking enlargement of time for disposal of the main suit after producing Succession certificate filed present Revision petition against orders passed in the petition filed before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge

¶10

¶11

returned the petition which is already registered instead of passing reasoned order.

¶12

This Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as admittedly Succession certificate has been granted to the petitioners after dismissal of suit filed by them, is of opinion that it is just and necessary to give opportunity to the petitioners/plaintiffs to approach Appellate Court by filing necessary petition for enlargement of time for disposal of the suit and also file necessary petition before Trial court for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default.

¶13

In the result, the present Civil Revision petition is disposed of giving liberty to petitioners/plaintiffs to approach the Appellate court for enlargement of time for disposal of O.S.62 of 2014 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Gudur and also opportunity is given to the petitioners to file necessary petition before Trial Court for restoration of the suit and both petitions shall be disposed of by the learned VII Addl.District Judge, Gudur and Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Gudur respectively on its own merits. In view of approaching this Court by filing Civil Revision Petition

¶14

¶15

benefit is given to the petitioners/plaintiffs under section 14 of Limitation Act. No order as to costs.

¶16

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stands closed. The Interim stay if any granted is hereby vacated.

¶17

__________________________ JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶18

Date :01.11.2022 GRL.

¶19

¶20

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶22

CRP.No.138 of 2017

¶23

Date : 01.11.2022

¶24

GRL.

Thayyuru Lakshmamma, v. Patan Usman Ali Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thayyuru Lakshmamma, v. Patan Usman Ali Khan

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

K.Uma Maheswara Rao and Another Vs v.China Bapanayya and 4 Others

Thatipudi Perayya and 3 Ors. Vs M.Venkayammaandanr

Lokavarapu Chittinaidu Vs Ch Ramakrishna Kumar

N Jayamma, Guntur Dist Vs Chilaka Veera Vasantha Kumari, Guntur Dist and 3 Others

K.Kanthamma Vs K.Vasantha Kumari and 6 Others

Tadiboina Siva Nageswari Vs Mallarapu Vijayalakshmi