The High Court dismissed civil miscellaneous appeals filed by an appellant aggrieved by the trial Court's order dismissing her interlocutory applications for restoration of a suit for non-compliance with directions to file chief affidavits.
The civil miscellaneous appeals were dismissed. There was no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY. • CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 679 & 710 OF 2013 * i*
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 679 OF 2013
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
Between:
Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani, W/o. Late Nageswara Rao, Aged 52 years. Household D.No. 7-85, Konuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS /DEFENDANTS
Counsel for the Appellant : SRI CH B R P SEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondents :
►
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 710 OF 2013
.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
^etwGQn:
<
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
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS
Counsel for the Appellant : SRI CH B R P SEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondents :
The Court made the following COMMON JUDGEMENT :
f
✓
APHC010454382013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 679/2013
Between:
Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani ...APPELLANT
AND Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari & Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant: 1.CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.
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:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CMA.Nos.679 & 710 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
- 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.
- The brief facts so far:
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.
2
- 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 petitionerhadtoattendon 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.
<br>
- Hence, the trial Court by holding that there are nobonatideson the part of the petitioner, dismissed the applications. Questioning the same, the present C.M.A is filed
- The reasoning of the trial Court was that the petitionerexamined herself as P.W.1 in chief and as the petitioner didnotattendtheCourt 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 tobefiled.Toenable the petitioner to file the same, the suit was adjournedto19.01.2012, 23.01.2012, 06.02.2012, 07.03.2012 and 20.3.2012. ThetrialCourtalso impend costs on 07.03.2012. In view of the non-compliance of the order of the trial Court with reference to filing ofchiefaffidavits,thesuit
3
r
/
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.
- The explanation of the petitioner that she had beentoCanadato attend to her daughter is not of relevance as the directionofthe 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 chiefaffidavit of other witnesses.
No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand dismissed.
To.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR
SE ON OFFICER
TAC
\ '
\
r
HIGH COURT
DATED: 13/09/2024
COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE
CMA.No’s.679 & 710 of 2013
^-Of andh^
8=>
i 0 ^ NOV 2024 I
. Curreni lection .
DISMISSING THE CMA’S
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND.TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 679 OF 2013
Between:
Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani, W/o. Late Nageswara Rao, Aged 52 years. Household D.No. 7-85, Konuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF
AND
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS /DEFENDANTS
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
Appeal is coming on for hearing and upon perusing theMemorandumof 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
This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:
SD/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
TAC
HIGH COURT
DATED: 13/09/2024
DECREE
CMA.No.679 of 2013
%
3 0 NOV 202'» O)
^ Curreoi decuon
DISMISSING THE CMA
«
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 710 OF 2013
Between:
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
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF
AND
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS
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
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
This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows;
SD/- M.RAMESH BABU
DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
To
TAC
I
HIGH COURT
DATED: 13/09/2024
DECREE
CMA.No.710 of 2013
m
3 L01 NOV 202‘i Co
Current section
DISMISSING THE CMA
^
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's order dismissing the interlocutory applications for non-compliance with the direction to file chief affidavits.
Whether the petitioner's absence in India to attend to her daughter excuses the delay in filing the required affidavits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani
Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari
Ramineni Venkata Rama Rao
Nyopathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
