B Ramiah Panthulu v. K Venkata Narasimha Rao
Case brief
What is this about?
This Common Order disposed of two Civil Revision Petitions—one by the dealer seeking restoration of a claim petition dismissed for non-prosecution, and one by the land owner questioning its maintainability. The court held that since the claim petition was dismissed due to non-prosecution without valid justification, C.R.P. No.553 of 2020 must be dismissed.
What did the court decide?
C.R.P. No. 553 of 2020 dismissed; C.R.P. No. 348 of 2019 closed with no order as to costs.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.348 of 2019 & 553 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:-
The petitioner in C.R.P.No.348 of 2019 is the owner of the plaint schedule property, consisting of Ac.0.68 cents of land in Ward No.1-block No.1-Rown Survey No.16/7 of Tenali Town, Guntur District. For ease of convenience, he is referred to as the land owner. Initially, the mother of the land owner, who was the owner of the schedule property had given the said land, on lease, to M/s.CALTEX India Limited on 18.11.1970. Thereafter, M/s.CALTEX India Limited was merged into M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited which became the lessee. Subsequent to the death of his mother, land owner became the owner of the said property, by virtue of a Will, executed by his mother, on 16.08.1990.
- The land owner, filed O.S.No.5 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, for eviction and payment of damages. This suit was decreed on 28.11.2014. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited filed A.S.No.16 of 2015 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali. This appeal was dismissed on 13.11.2017. By then, the land owner had filed E.P.No. 28 of 2015 for execution of the judgement and decree of the Trial court. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited then moved Second Appeal No.1439 of 2017, before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the
2
RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.348 of 2019&553 of 2020
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 CPC is maintainable in an execution proceeding.
Whether a Civil Revision Petition filed by the dealer to set aside the dismissal of a restoration application is sustainable.
Whether legacy of absence due to alleged ailments justifies setting aside the order of dismissal in an execution petition.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Dealer
- respondent
Land Owner
Coram
R. Raghunandan Rao
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Andhra Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRP/348/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court