Allowed

G.Rama Devi, Guntur Dist v. Giri Venkata Ramana Prasad, Guntur and Anr.

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Nov 2022CRP/4803/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed Civil Revision Petitions challenging a Trial Court order setting aside an ex parte decree. The bench held that the Trial Court failed to record reasons or discuss counter-arguments, violating the principle of giving reasons and the rule of audit. The impugned orders were quashed and the cases remanded for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders setting aside ex parte decree are set aside. Petitions remanded to Trial Court for fresh disposal within 3 months with opportunity to both sides.

G.Rama Devi, Guntur Dist Vs Giri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶3

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4803 of 2016, 4908 of 2016, 4935 of 2016 and 5201 of 2016

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

As all these Civil Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner/plaintiff arising out of same Original suit, as all these Civil Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India arising out of orders passed by the learned Trial Judge in Interlocutory applications to set aside the exparte decree by condoning the delay in filing the petition arising out of the same original suit can be disposed of by this Common order.

¶6

The 1^st respondent who is no more and his legal representative is added as 3^rd respondent filed petitions before Trial court to set aside the exparte decree by condoning the delay in filing the same wherein Revision petitioner admittedly filed counter. The learned Trial Judge after hearing both sides passed orders by observing that principles of natural justice to be followed while deciding the suit on merits, which the rule of ‘ Audi Altrem Pattem’ is applicable and learned Trial Judge found force in the contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.1/petitioner and allowed the petitions. On perusal of orders passed

¶7

¶8

by learned Trial Judge in all the petitions, which clearly shows that no reason is mentioned for allowing the petitions. Even there is no discussion with regard to counters said to be filed by the petitioner opposing the contention of Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1. The learned counsel for Revision petitioner as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2 fairly contended that no reasons are mentioned by the learned Trial Judge for allowing the petitions. It is settled law that the giving reasons is one of the fundamentals of adjudicatory system and failure to give reasons amount denial of justice. On perusal of orders passed by learned Trial Judge in the petitions which shows that absolutely no reasons are mentioned what made him to allow the petitions except mentioning decision of Honourable Apex Court even without mentioning the parties names which required while Court placing reliance on precedent law. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is fit to remand all the petitions to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. The learned Trial Judge shall hear both sides afresh and pass reasoned order as required under law by keeping in mind the ratio laid down by this Court in

¶9

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) represented by the General Manager Vs.Smt.Allu Nookaratnam, 2022(6) ALT P.61

¶10

AP.

¶11

¶12

In the result, all Civil Revision petitions are allowed. No

¶13

order as to costs.

¶14

The impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Judge in all Interlocutory applications are hereby set aside and all Interlocutory applications are hereby remanded to Trial Court for fresh disposal.

¶15

The learned Trial Judge shall dispose of all Interlocutory applications after giving opportunity to both sides to submit arguments. The learned trial Judge shall hear both sides and dispose of petitions within three (3) months from the date of receipt of orders of this Court.

¶16

_____________________________ JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶17

Date :11.11.2022 GRL.

¶18

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶21

CRP.Nos.4803 of 2016, 4908 of 2016,

¶22

4935 of 2016 and 5201 of 2016

¶23

Date : 11.11.2022

¶24

GRL.

G.Rama Devi, Guntur Dist v. Giri Venkata Ramana Prasad, Guntur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Rama Devi, Guntur Dist v. Giri Venkata Ramana Prasad, Guntur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vemulapalli Krishna Mohan, Krishna Dist and 2 Others Vs Yenuga Govinda Kumari, Krishna Dist

Majeti Badari Narayana Prasad, Guntur Dist Vs Sinde Krishnamma, Guntur Dist and Two Others

Kesamsetti Raju Naidu and 5 Others Vs Kanchipati Somu Naidu at Tatalu and 6 Others

Boyina Venkata Ratnam Vs Maddi Rama Rao

Gopisetty Srinivasa Rao, Vs Nandamudi Subash Chandra Bose

Gopisetty Srinivasa Rao Vs Nandamudi Subash Chandra Bose and 3 Others