Dismissed

Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani v. Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2024CMA/679/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed against a trial court order dismissing applications to restore a suit for default. The trial court had dismissed the applications due to the appellant's failure to file chief affidavits of witnesses despite multiple adjournments. The High Court rejected the appellant's excuse regarding travel to Canada as irrelevant to the specific default

What did the court decide?

The C.M.A.Nos. 679 & 710 of 2013 are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY. • CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 679 & 710 OF 2013 * i*

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 679 OF 2013

¶6

Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the order passed in lA.No. 703 of 2012 in OS.No. 88 of 2009 dated 03/07/2013 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani, W/o. Late Nageswara Rao, Aged 52 years. Household D.No. 7-85, Konuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District

¶9

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND

¶10

Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari, W/o. Venkatapathi Rao, Aged 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Punadipadu village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District

¶11

Ramineni Venkata Rama Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 52 years,Occ: Business, R/o. Kummamuru village, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS /DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI CH B R P SEKHAR

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents :

¶15

►

¶16

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 710 OF 2013

¶17

.r -S.A*^f)eal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the order passed in
f- file of
• -I j^^o. 704 of 2012 in OS.No. 88 of 2009 dated 03/07/2013 on the
% XIII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada

¶18

^etwGQn:

¶19

¶20

Smt.Vallurupalli Durga Rani, W/o. Late Nageswara Rao, Aged 52 years Occ: Household, R/o D.No. 7-85 Konuru Village, Penamaluru mandal Krishna District

¶21

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND

¶22

Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari, W/o. Venkatapathi Rao, Aged 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Punadipadu Village, Kankipadu Mandal,^Krishna District

¶23

Ramineni Venkata Rama Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana , Aged 52 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Kummamuru village, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District

¶24

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI CH B R P SEKHAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents :

¶27

The Court made the following COMMON JUDGEMENT :

✓

APHC010454382013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶32

[3460]

¶33

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶34

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶35

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 679/2013

¶36

Between:

¶37

Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani ...APPELLANT

¶38

AND Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari & Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Counsel for the Appellant: 1.CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.

¶40

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 710/2013 Between: Vallurupalli Durga Rani ...APPELLANT AND Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari And Another and ...RESPONDENT{S) Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following:

¶41

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CMA.Nos.679 & 710 of 2013

¶42

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶43

The present Appeals are filed aggrieved by the Common Order dated 03.07.2013 passed in I.A Nos.703 & 704 of 2012 in O.S.88 of 2009 by the XII Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Vijayawada.

¶44

The brief facts so far:

¶45

The petitioner/plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.88 of 2009 for recovery of money based on promissory note, which was dismissed for default on 20.03.2012. Subsequently, I.A.Nos.163 & 162 of 2012 were filed to restore the main suit and I.A.No.1772 of 2009 respectively. The trial Court on 23.06.2012 allowed the said applications imposing a condition to file the chief affidavit of petitioner and of all other witnesses on her behalf by 12.07.2012 and if not, the petition would be dismissed. However, the petitioner could not comply with the condition even though the case was adjourned from 23.07.2012 to 16.10.2012 to enable the petitioner to comply. The trial Court had dismissed the I.A.Nos.163 & 162 of 2012 for non-compliance of the condition for restoration of the suit on 16.10.2012.

¶46

¶47

Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.703 & 704 of 2012 to restore both the l.A.Nos.163 & 162 of 2012 respectively pleading that she went to Canada on 17.4.2012 to attend to her daughter,^whohad given birth to twins. It was pleaded that the petitioner^{hadtoattendon} the health of the daughter and returned to India on 22.10.2012. The Respondents filed Counter on 19.03.2013 contending that the plea that the petitioner was in Canada was never informed to the Court by her counsel at earlier point of time and that the case was adjourned on several occasions for the cross examination of P.W.1 since 17.8.2011.

¶48

<br>

¶49

Hence, the trial Court by holding that there are no^bonatideson the part of the petitioner, dismissed the applications. Questioning the same, the present C.M.A is filed

¶50

The reasoning of the trial Court was that the petitioner^examined herself as P.W.1 in chief and as the petitioner did^{notattendtheCourt} for cross examination, the suit was adjourned on 17.8.2011,^25.8.2011 29.9.2011, 17.10.2011 and 17.11.2011. On 19.12.2011, when the petitioner was present in the Court, the chief affidavits of other witnesses in support of her claim were directed to^{befiled.Toenable} the petitioner to file the same, the suit was adjourned^{to19.01.2012,} 23.01.2012, 06.02.2012, 07.03.2012 and 20.3.2012. The^{trialCourtalso} impend costs on 07.03.2012. In view of the non-compliance of the order of the trial Court with reference to filing of^{chiefaffidavits,thesuit}

was dismissed for default on 20.03.2012. The dates mentioned above reflect the non-seriousness on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the litigation.

¶55

The explanation of the petitioner that she had been^toCanadato attend to her daughter is not of relevance as the direction^ofthe trial Court was to file the chief affidavits of the witnesses of the petitioner in support of suit claim. Her presence in India was relevant for her cross examination, but the I.As were dismissed for non-compliance of the condition to file the chief affidavits of other witnesses. There is no explanation as to why she could not file the chief^affidavit of other witnesses.

¶56

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The C.M.As are accordingly dismissed.

¶57

No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶58

To.

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

SD/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶61

SE ON OFFICER

¶62

The XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District (with records if any)

¶63

One CC to SRI CH.B. R. P. SEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

The Section Officer, V.R Section, High court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

¶65

THREE CD COPIES

TAC

\ '

HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/09/2024

COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE

¶73

CMA.No’s.679 & 710 of 2013

¶74

^-Of andh^
8=>
i 0 ^ NOV 2024 I
. Curreni lection .

¶75

DISMISSING THE CMA’S

¶76

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶77

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND.TWENTY FOUR

¶78

PRESENT

¶79

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶80

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 679 OF 2013

¶81

Between:

¶82

Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani, W/o. Late Nageswara Rao, Aged 52 years. Household D.No. 7-85, Konuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District

¶83

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶84

AND

¶85

Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari, W/o. Venkatapathi Rao, Aged 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Punadipadu village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District

¶86

Ramineni Venkata Rama Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 52 years,Occ: Business, R/o. Kummamuru village, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District

¶87

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS /DEFENDANTS

¶88

¶89

Appeal is coming on for hearing and upon perusing the^Memorandumof Appeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar, Advocate for the Appellant and None appeared for the Respondents

¶90

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶91

That the C.M.A be and hereby is dismissed

¶92

That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal

¶93

SD/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District

¶98

THREE CD COPIES

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/09/2024

DECREE

CMA.No.679 of 2013

%
3 0 NOV 202'» O)
^ Curreoi decuon

¶105

DISMISSING THE CMA

¶106

¶107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶108

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶109

PRESENT

¶110

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶111

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 710 OF 2013

¶112

Between:

¶113

Smt.Vallurupalli Durga Rani, W/o. Late Nageswara Rao, Aged 52 years Occ: Household, R/o D.No. 7-85 Konuru Village, Penamaluru mandal Krishna District

¶114

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶115

AND

¶116

Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari, W/o. Venkatapathi Rao, Aged 47 years, Occ; Business, R/o. Punadipadu Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District

¶117

Ramineni Venkata Rama Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana , Aged 52 years, Occ.Business, R/o. Kummamuru village, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District

¶118

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS

¶119

Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the order passed in lA.No. 704 of 2012 in OS.No. 88 of 2009 dated 03/07/2013 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada

¶120

¶121

Appeal is coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar, Advocate for the Appellant and None appeared for the Respondents

¶122

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows;

¶123

That the C.M.A be and hereby is dismissed

¶124

That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal

¶125

SD/- M.RAMESH BABU

¶126

DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶127

¶128

The XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District

¶129

THREE CD COPIES

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/09/2024

DECREE

CMA.No.710 of 2013

m
3 L01 NOV 202‘i Co
Current section

¶137

DISMISSING THE CMA

¶138

Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani v. Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani v. Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari and Another

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

Bhagya Lakshmi Vs Revuri Lakshmana Rao

T Ananda Reddy Vs P Lokanadha Reddy and 2 Other

V Jayamma, Rayadurg Vs v Anjanappa, Rayadurg

Vallurupalli Durga Rani Vs Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari and Another

Sri Abdul Azmir Baba Vs the Eluru Town Automobile Mechanics Association and 17 Others

K Kanthamma at Kantamani Vs Mylabathula Rambabu