Dismissed

B. Sreenivasulu, v. M. Reddemma

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2023CRP/3171/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court's framing of an additional issue on territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that since serious doubt existed over the transaction location, the issue must be framed, leaving limitation to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of without costs; pending miscellaneous petitions to stand closed.

B. Sreenivasulu, Vs M. Reddemma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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 R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3171 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Order dated 23.08.2023 in I.A.No.128 of 2023 in O.S.No.29 of 2022 on the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Sreenivasulu, S/o. Chinnappa, Aged about 60 years, residing at Besant Street, Madanapalle, Chittoor District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

M. Reddemma, W/o. Raja Gopal, Aged about 75 years, residing at Tirupathi and come down to Madanapalle.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further O.S.No.29 of 2022 proceedings in on the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, pending disposal of the main Petition in the interest of the justice.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. P. SARASWATHI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: --

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISIQTM PETITION No.3171 of 2023 ORD^:

¶19

The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.594 of 2014 before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest, on the basis of a promissory note that is alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein. on 17.02.2011. This suit was dismissed on 30.03.2016 on the ground that no cause of action has been shown in the plaint. The Trial Court took the view that the cross-examination of • the witnesses of the respondent had demonstrated that the transaction took place inii_ Madanapalle while the pleading in the suit showed that the pro-note transaction took place at Tirupati on 17.02.2011 and as such, the cause of action claimed in the plaint is not correct.

¶20

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent is said to have filed A.S.No.l23 of 2016 before the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati and the same came to be remanded by an order dated 18.02.2022 with a direction to the Trial Court to frame an additional i issue as to whether the Trial Court,

¶21

¶22

namely the Principal District Judge, Tirupati had territorial jurisdiction. After remand of the case, the respondent filed an application before the Trial Court at Tirupati for return of the plaint to enable the respondent to move the appropriate Court. This request of the respondent was accepted by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, who return the suit, on 25.03.2022, with a time of three days being granted^for

¶23

presentation before the proper Court. The suit bundle was presented before the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

¶24

Mandanapalle and was renumbered as O.S.No.29 of 2022.

¶25

Thereafter, the respondent moved l.A.No.l28 of 2023 for framing of an additional issue with regard to the question of jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The petitioner herein opposed the said application on the ground that the suit was represented before the Trial Court at Madanapalle only on 13.06.2022 and as such, the claim of the respondent is hopelessly barred by limitation and consequently, the application should be dismissed.

¶26

The Trial Court after looking into the record had held that the suit was resubmitted before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle on 25.03.2022 itself and that there

¶27

¶28

was no deviation of the orders passed by the appellate^Court • or by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.^Onthis * basis, the Trial Court, by an order dated 23.08.2023,^had allowed the application holding that there was a direction by the appellate Court for framing an additional issue as to jurisdiction.

¶29

Aggrieved by the said order and the consequent framing of an additional issue as to whether the Trial Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the petitioner has moved the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶30

Smt. P. Saraswathi, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Trial Court erred in considering the application when the suit itself is not maintainable. She would further submit that the Trial Court without going into the question of limitation and without going into the question of whether the direction of the appellate Court as well as the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati had been complied with or not, has passed^anorder of farming an additional issue and the same is not permissible.

¶31

¶32

In view of the direction given by the appellate Court for framing an issue as to territorial jurisdiction^andin view of the fact that there appears to be a serious^doubtasto whether the suit transaction took place in Mandanpalle^orin Tirupati, the framing of the additional issue as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, is an issue which requires to be framed. As far as the question of whether the representation of the plaint before the Trial Court at Madanpalle is within time or not is a matter which would have to be decided by the Trial Court.

¶33

In the circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There^shallbe no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

SDI- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANX1^6|STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT N^FFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.(with^{recordsifany)} 2. One CC to Smt. P. Saraswathi, 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.3171 of 2023

OV
<>'o
yo
ml
r c-r ?
0 I MM W
Vo
^ Current Section .•V

¶43

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶44

^ Lo^iM

¶45

B. Sreenivasulu, v. M. Reddemma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Sreenivasulu, v. M. Reddemma

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

D Krishnaveni Vs Sri Chiranjeevif Chowdary

Smt Namala Chandamma Vs M Chenchaiah

Smt.P.Lalithamma Vs P.Dhanalakshmi

Dasari Ramakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yerpedu Raja Reddy, Vs Yerpedu Gram Panchayat

G Venkataramana Vs Sri.Shashi Bhushan Kumar