Disposed

Mandadi Venkatesh v. Shaik Mehrunnisa

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2023CRP/1976/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the trial court erred in returning a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC without hearing the petitioner who had submitted elaborate arguments and case law. The Court directed the trial court to examine the maintainability of the petition within four weeks. The Civil Revision Petition allowing the stay application while returning the original application was also addr

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to examine the contentions regarding the maintainability of the claim petition within four weeks.

Mandadi Venkatesh Vs Shaik Mehrunnisa — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1976 OF 2ni»

¶6

Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the order dated 03.01.2018 in CFR.No.3920/2017 in E.P.No.57 of 2016 in O.S.No.232 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

¶7

Between:

¶8

“ote^PrSamSisfriS'''""

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

^ Bapatia ^Guntur^Di’s'thS Chettu Street,

¶12

Mandadi Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 46 years, Hindu Employee, R/o Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole, Prakasam District

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2Q1R

¶15

in th f Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.57/2016 in O.S.No.232/2011 on the abovi CRP^°^^ Pending disposal of

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI E. V. V. S. RAVI KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶20

C.R.P.No.1976 of 2018

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The present revision is filed against the endorsement of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri in returning the claim petition on 03.01.2018.

¶23

The petitioner filed claim petition i.e. unnumbered E.A.No. of 2017 in E.P.No.57 of 2016 in O.S.No.232 of 2011 on the premise that the petitioner and one Hemanth are the sons of 2"^^ respondent and that they are owners^of the ancestral property purchased by respondent No.2^with joint family funds. The petitioner, his brother Hemanth and respondent No.2 are entitled for l/3rd share in the property. The suit filed by respondent No. 1 for recovery^of amount against respondent No.2 on the ground that respondent No.2 had taken loan for family expenses; a collusive decree was passed thereon. The said decree^does not bind on the petitioner right, title and interest in the petition schedule properties and other joint family

¶24

' T

¶25

¶26

properties. Hence, the present claim petition was filed under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C., to raise the attachment order dated 22.11.2012 in E.P.No.57 of 2016 in O.S.No.232 of 2011. This application was filed in November, 2017. The trial Court returned the same on 14.11.2017 with^an endorsement that as to how the petition is maintainable. The petitioner re-submitted on 04.12.2017 that claim petition is maintainable as per the decision of this^Court reported in Dr.M.Ramachandra Rao v. A.Papayya Sastry and another^. The trial Court again returned^the application on 26.12.2017 on the ground that the trial Court has no jurisdiction. The counsel in the lower^Court represented on 29.12.2017 that the matter may be called for hearing before the Bench. In spite of the endorsement of the counsel to call the petition before the Bench,^thetrial Court vide order dated 03.01.2018 again returned the same with the endorsement mentioned above.

¶27

¶28

The trial Court ought to have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, when an endorsement was^made

¶29

AIR 1974 A.P. 28

¶30

¶31

on 29.12.2017 for explaining the petition to the Court. The elaborate representation made on 04.12.2017 with case law was not considered by the Court below and this^isnot sustainable.

¶32

Therefore, this Court directs the trial Court to examine the contentions of the petitioner with regard^tothe maintainability and pass orders thereon within a period^of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of^this order.

¶33

With this observation, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶34

SDI- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT:: IT T^EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^ SECTION OFHCER

¶35

To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District(with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri E. V. V. S. Ravi Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of^{A.P.atAmaravati.} 4. Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:22/12/2023

ORDER

CRP.No.1976 of 2018

DISPOSING OF THE C.R.P.