Dismissed

Mandapalli Chenchu Rama Rao, v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC22 Mar 2010CMA/876/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging an order denying to set aside an ex parte decree, the Court held that the conditional order requiring deposition of half the decretal amount was lawful. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to complete the deposit within a week.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to deposit half of the decretal amount within one week.

Mandapalli Chenchu Rama Rao, Vs State Bank of India — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.876 OF 2008.

¶2

DATED:22-03-2010.

¶3

Between:

¶4

M.Chenchu Rama Rao

¶5

… Appellant/Defendant

¶6

and

¶7

State Bank of India, Addanki, Rep. by its Branch Manager.

¶8

…Respondent/Plaintiff

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶10

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.876 OF 2008.

¶11

JUDGMENT:

¶12

This appeal is filed challenging the order and decretal order, dated 19-07-2006, in I.A.No.477 of 2005 in O.S.No.15 of 1999, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki.

¶13

2. The appellant herein filed the above application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 1610-2000. The trial Court allowed the application on depositing half of the decretal amount by the appellant.

¶14

3. In the suit, at the time of passing final decree and in the execution proceedings, the appellant was evading to receive the summons and therefore, paper publication was ordered and thereafter, he was set ex parte. The trial Court considering the fact that the appellant has not received the summons, set aside

¶15

the ex parte order on deposit of half of the decretal amount.

¶16

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that when there is no decree, question of depositing half of the decretal amount does not arise and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶17

5. The suit is of the year 1999. When the order was passed by the trial Court to deposit half of the decretal amount, that amount has not been deposited. Another application was filed to grant time for deposit. Accordingly, time was granted. Still that order was not complied with. Thereafter, the appellant filed another application to review the order, dated 19-07-2006, but that application was dismissed. Hence, this appeal is filed.

¶18

6. The order under challenge is not shown to be perverse or contrary to law in view of the fact that the suit is of the year 1999. Though no decree was passed, at the same time, the trial Court allowed the application on condition of depositing half of the decretal amount. Ex parte decree would be set aside so as to raise all contentions to show the bona fides. The conditional order of the trial Court has not been complied with. The present appeal appears to have been filed only to drag on the matter. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the order.

¶19

7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with a direction to the appellant to deposit half of the decretal amount as directed by the trial Court within a period of one week from today, failing which, the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶20

K.C.BHANU, J

¶21

DATED:22-03-2010

¶22

Note: Issue CC by tomorrow.

¶23

B/o Hsd

Mandapalli Chenchu Rama Rao, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandapalli Chenchu Rama Rao, v. State Bank of India

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

Talari Butchanna Vs Syndicate Bank

Eeramalla Bal Raj Vs Nallanagula Sunanda

Jakkula Ramulu Vs Nookala Chandraiah

M/s. Kakatiya Cements Ltd.,(now known as kakatiya Cement Vs J.Samba Siva Rao

The Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s.Vikas Enterprises

Syed Khader Basha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh