Dismissed

Nirujogi Tata v. Boddakayala Trinadha Venakta Satayanarayana and 4 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Nov 2024CMSA/14/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice B S Bhanumathi dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals Nos. 14 and 15 of 2022 filed by Nirujogi Tata for default due to the absence of party representation despite posting for dismissal, closing the file without substantive consideration.

What did the court decide?

Nothing granted; appeals dismissed for default due to non-appearance.

Nirujogi Tata Vs Boddakayala Trinadha… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC011552262012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3311]

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBE R TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶7

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO: 15/2022

Between:

Nirujogi Tata

...APPELLANT

AND

Nirujogi Appalanarasamma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶14

1.P NAGENDRA REDD Y

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶16

1.A S C BOSE

¶17

AND

¶18

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO: 14/2022

¶19

Between:

¶20

Nirujogi Tata ...APPELLANT

¶21

AND

¶22

Boddakayala Trinadha Venakta Satayanarayana ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶23

And 4 Ors and Others

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶25

1.P NAGENDRA REDD Y

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KETHVATHU PARVA T HI BAI 2.A S C BOSE

¶27

¶28

BSB, J C.M.S.A.Nos.15 and 14 of 2022

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T:

¶31

C.M.S.A.No.14 of 2022

¶32

This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of CPC by Nirujogi Tata/appellant/claim petitioner against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.47 of 2011 dated 17.11.2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the order and decree in E.A.No.43 of 2009 in E.P.No.12 of 2008 in O.S.No.96 of 2005 dated 11.03.2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, at Kottavalasa.

¶33

C.M.S.A.No.15 of 2022

¶34

This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of CPC by Nirujogi Tata/appellant/claim petitioner against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.46 of 2011 dated 17.11.2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the order and decree in E.A.No.44 of 2009 in E.P.No.13 of 2008 in O.S.No.97 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, at Kottavalasa.

¶35

I.A.No.01 of 2023 is an application filed by the claim petitioner to record the following terms of compromise and to declare the appellant as absolute owner of the petition schedule house and consequently set aside the sale held on 15.04.2011 in E.P.No.12 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa and to refund the sale consideration deposited by the auction purchaser in E.P.No.12 of 2008.

¶36

¶37

BSB, J C.M.S.A.Nos.15 and 14 of 2022

¶38

¶39

The terms of compromise are as follows:

¶40

“ 1.The decree holder/auction purchaser, who is the 1^st respondent in this appeal and respondent No.2 to 5, who are the judgment debtors admit that the appellant/Nirujogi Thata is the absolute owner of the petition schedule E.P.schedule house. Consequently all the respondents agreed for setting aside sale held on 15.04.2011 auctioning the schedule of property in E.P.No.12 of 2008 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa.

¶41

2.The decree holder has received the decretal amount from judgment debtors in E.P.No.12 of 2008 and the decree holder is ready to furnish full satisfaction memo and he would file the same in the Junior Civil Judge Court, Kothavalasa as soon as the stay is vacated by this Court.

¶42

3.As the sale is set aside and the decree is fully satisfied the auction purchaser, decree holder is entitled to refund of the sale consideration deposited by him in the said E.P.12 of 2008.

¶43

All the parties to the appeal pray that an award may be passed as follows:

¶44

i. To declare the appellant as absolute owner of the petition schedule house and consequently set aside the sale held on 1504-2021 in E.P.No.12/2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa.

¶45

ii. To issue a direction to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa to refund the sale consideration deposited by the auction purchaser in E.P.12/2008 on an application being filed by him for the issue of a cheque in his favour for the said amount.”

¶46

¶47

BSB, J C.M.S.A.Nos.15 and 14 of 2022

¶48

(i) On 23.04.2024, the Court proceeding in C.M.S.A.No.14 of 2022 is as follows: “Vakalat has been filed for respondents No.2 to 5 by Smt.K.Parvathi. A neat copy of the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2023 has not been filed. List on 07.05.2024.

¶49

On 23.04.2024, the Court proceeding in C.M.S.A.No.15 of 2022 is as follows: “Smt.K.Parvathi, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellant requested time to bring legal representatives of the 1^st respondent on record. I.A.No.01 of 2023 is wrongly filed by showing incorrect name of 1^st respondent. Hence a fresh application with correct name of parties duly signed shall be filed. Post on 07.05.2024“.

¶50

(ii) On 25.06.2024, the court proceeding in C.M.S.A.No.15 of 2022 is as follows: “Mr.S.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the respondents is present and requested two weeks time. He represented that a fresh compromise petition had been submitted to the registry, but, the same is incomplete for want of inclusion of one of the parties who, as per the information, passed away. List on 09.07.2024”.

¶51

On 25.06.2024, the court proceeding in C.M.S.A.No.14 of 2022 is directed to be listed along with C.M.S.A.No.15 of 2022 on 09.07.2024.

¶52

(iii) On 28.08.2024, there is no representation for appellant. Both

¶53

parties have no representation continuously on 25.09.2024, 23.10.2024. Even

¶54

¶55

BSB, J

¶56

C.M.S.A.Nos.15 and 14 of 2022

¶57

on 06.11.2024, there was no representation, though the matters were posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, there is no representation inspite

¶58

of posting the matters under the caption ‘for dismissal’.

¶59

As such, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal Nos.15 and 14 of 2022

¶60

are dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil

¶62

miscellaneous second appeals shall stand closed.

¶63

___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI

¶64

Dated :13.11.2024 GRL

¶65

¶66

BSB, J C.M.S.A.Nos.15 and 14 of 2022

¶67

207

¶68

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶69

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NOs: 15 of 2022

¶70

and 14 of 2022

¶71

¶72

BSB, J C.M.S.A.Nos.15 and 14 of 2022

¶73

Date: 13.11.2024

¶74

GRL

Nirujogi Tata v. Boddakayala Trinadha Venakta Satayanarayana and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirujogi Tata v. Boddakayala Trinadha Venakta Satayanarayana and 4 Ors.

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

Jampana Srikanth Vs Jampana Naga Poojitha @ Marredu Naga Poojitha

Kamireddy Muni Reddy (died) Vs Kamireddy @ Chintamreddy Jothi

Kamireddy Muni Reddy Vs Kamireddy @ Chintamreddy Jothi

Ankem Varaprasad Vs Vemuri Jagadamba

Sri Vasavi Educational Society, Vs Kakinada Municipal Corporation

Nirujogi Tata Vs Nirujogi Appalanarasamma