Allowed

B Krishnama Naidu v. B Prabhavathi

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024CRP/6997/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants sought condonation of a 314-day delay in applying to set aside an ex parte injunction decree, explaining they had entrusted case papers to a stranger at the court compound. The High Court found the explanation plausible and held that once the explanation is credible, delay must be condoned, especially in suits over agricultural property requiring adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing I.A.No.270/2017 set aside; delay application allowed; status quo as on date of order till disposal of suit; no costs.

B Krishnama Naidu Vs B Prabhavathi — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶5

aVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6997 OF 2018

¶6

Petition under 115 of C.P.C, is filed being aggrieved by the Orders i n I.A.No.270/2017 in O.S.No.380/2016, dt.06-09-2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge. Chittoor.

¶7

Between:

¶8

B Krishnama Naidu, S/o Varadappa Naidu. Aged about 67yrs 2. B.Vinayaka, S/o B.Krishnama Naidu, Aged about 37 yrs Both are residing at Lakshmaiahvooru village Vavilthota post Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District

¶9

...Petitioners/ Petitioners/Defendants AND

¶10

B Prabhavathi. W/o B.Bakkaiah Naidu Kesavulu Naidu, Aged about 60 yrs, Occ: Cultivation, Housewife Residing at Lakshmaiahvooru village Vavilthota post, Puthalapattu Mandal Chittoor District.

¶11

...Respondent/ Respondent/Plaintiff

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C Jhansi Rani

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K G Trimoorthy The Court made the following:

¶14

APHC010868942018

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶16

[3460]

¶17

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶18

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶21

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6997/2018

¶22

Between:

¶23

B. Krishnama Naidu and Others

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

B. Prabhavathi

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶29

1.C JHANSI RANI

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶31

1.TRIMOORTHY KG

¶32

The Court made the following Order:

¶33

Aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 06.09.2018 in I.A.No.270 of 2017 in O.S.No.380 of 2016 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, the present Civil Revision Petition^isfiled.

¶34

¶35

The Petitioners are Defendants. The Respondent/Plaintiff^filedasuit for Permanent Injunction and the same was decreed ex parte on 27.07.2016. The Petitioners on being informed of the ex parte decree, filed I.A.No.270 of 2017 to condone delay of 314 days^{inseekingtoset} aside the ex parte decree. The explanation given in^{theaffidavitfiled} in support of the above application is that after receiving^{thesummonsinthe} suit, the petitioners entrusted the suit in favour^{ofonepersonintheCourt} compound by handing over the case papers to him and^{thesaidindividual} had promised to look after the suit proceedings. Though^{thepetitioners} were enquiring about the suit, no information was furnished to them. It was pleaded that since the petitioners were not^{representedbyanyone,} the petitioners were set ex parte on 18.07.2016 and^{anexparteorder} came to be passed on 27.07.2016.

¶36

A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff denying the pleadings of the Petitioners. 4. The trial Court, while dismissing the Interlocutory^{Application,had} noted that the petitioners had received suit summons^{andthosesummons} were signed in Telugu by the Petitioner No.1 and in^{EnglishbyPetitioner} No.2. Since the explanation given by the Petitioners^{forthedelayisfound} wanting, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

¶37

Heard Ms.C.Jhansi Rani, learned counsel for the^{petitionersand} Sri Trimoorthy K.G., learned counsel for the respondent.

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel for the Petitioners while reiterating^{thesubmissions} mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.270 of 2017 to condone delay contended that the petitioners are rustic villagers and their legal awareness and consequence of summons were not properly understood. It was contended that it is a matter of common feature in trial Courts that the persons promise to look after the cases and the parties believing the same entrust cases to them. Therefore, the explanation offered by the Petitioners cannot be said to be unbelievable.

¶40

¶41

Learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff contended that the Order of the trial Court cannot be faulted and neither the details of the person to whom the papers entrusted were not mentioned in the explanation nor day to day delay as required for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was given by^{thePetitioners.} 8. In the opinion of this Court, the reasoning given by^{thePetitioners} that they are entrusted the matter to a stranger in the Court compound by believing his words is a possibility and the fact that the petitioners did not name the person to whom the case was entrusted is only^onaccountof the fact that they are unaware of the particulars of the individual. This sought of incidents are not unknown to the Courts. Once the explanation of the petitioners is plausible, delay^{isboundtobecondoned.}

¶42

This is all the more required in the present suit, as the suit pertains to agricultural property and an adjudication on merits should always be invited to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties. Therefore, the Order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶43

¶44

¶45

\o. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order in I.A.No.270 of 2017 in O.S.No.380 of 2016 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. However, as the ex parte injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff is in vogue since 27.07.2017, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today till disposal of the^suit.

¶46

No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH assistant registrar

¶48

//TRUE COPY// SEdllohrdFFlCER

¶49

To, Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District, (with 1. The Principal

¶50

The Principal records if any)

¶51

. C Jhansi Rani, Advocate [OPUC].

¶52

1. OneCCto Sri

¶53

Trimoorthy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

1. One CC to Sri. K G

¶55

Court of Andhra Pradesh at

¶56

Officer, V.R. Section, High

¶57

1. The Section Amaravathi.

5. Three CD Copies

Stu sree

HIGH COURT

DATED: 05/09/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.6997 of 2018

ANOH^
O
5o 2 0 SEP 202i» Comil
^ . Current Section ^
£espA-rcy^'^0^

¶65

ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS

B Krishnama Naidu v. B Prabhavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Krishnama Naidu v. B Prabhavathi

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

Bokka Krishna Murthy, Vs Bokka Srinivasa Rao

Lalitha Kumar Vs P.Lakshmi Devi

Salla Nagabhushanam Vs Kumari Pushpalatha

Mallipudi Durga Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Udaya Bhaskara Vs Gatti Subbarao

Vadde Venkateswarlu, Vs Gandam Rama Subba Reddy

S. Rahamthulla Waseem Vs G. Saleem Basha