Dismissed

Jada Pydappadu v. Mannala Appanna

Telangana HC16 Apr 2010CRP/346/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition was filed against an order allowing the transmission of a promissory note from one suit file to another due to a clerical mistake. The High Court relied on inherent powers under Section 151 CPC and dismissed the revision, finding no merit in interfering with the bona fide correction.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Jada Pydappadu Vs Mannala Appanna — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶6

C.R.P.No.346 OF 2010

¶7

Between:Jada Pydappadu

…Petitioner

A n d

Mannala Appanna

…Respondents

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.346 OF 2010

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 08-12-2009 in I.A.No.218 of 2009 in O.S.No.84 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli, wherein the said application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC to send for the pronote filed in O.S.No.83 of 2006 to the file of this suit, was allowed.

¶15

2. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

¶16

3 . The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit

¶17

O.S.No.84 of 2006 for recovery of amount due under promissory note against the petitioner/defendant. It is stated that the wife of the respondent/ plaintiff filed another suit O.S.No.83 of 2006 against the same defendant for recovery of amount due under another pronote executed on the same day. According to the plaintiff, while filing the suits, the documents pertaining to this suit got mixed up with another suit and the promissory note and other documents relating to this suit O.S.No.84 of 2006 were filed in the other suit O.S.No.83 of 2006 and the documents pertaining to O.S.No.83 of 2006 were filed in this

¶18

suit O.S.No.84 of 2006 and the said mistake was purely clerical.

¶19

The respondent/plaintiff, therefore, filed I.A.No.218 of 2009 under Section XIII Rule 10 CPC to send for the promissory note filed in O.S.No.83 of 2006 to this suit. It is stated that a similar application was filed in O.S.No.83 of 2006 also to send for the promissory note and other documents filed in this suit to the file of the said suit. It is stated that the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has filed his own affidavit also in support of this application stating that it a mistake on the part of his clerk in mixing up the documents while filing the two suits together on the same date.

¶20

4. Under similar circumstances, this Court in

¶21

M.SATYANARAYANA @ PEDDA RAJU V. KATAMA RAJU AND

¶22

ANOTHE R^[1] observed that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC can be invoked to rectify the bona fide mistake by ordering to send

¶23

the promissory notes to the correct files. Relying on the said judgment, the trial Court, holding that it is a case of bona fide mistake of the counsel, allowed the application to send for the documents from the other suit. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court in the interest of justice and fair play. There are no merits in the civil revision petition.

¶24

5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶26

16^th April, 2010 Lrkm.

¶27

[1] 2009(6) ALT 93

Jada Pydappadu v. Mannala Appanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jada Pydappadu v. Mannala Appanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United Phosphorus Ltd., Guntur, rep. by its Accountant and Vs M/s. Jaikisan Seeds, rep. by its Prop. Pothureddy Krishna

J.Bhagwandas Vs The State of a.P.Through S.H.O.Madannapet P.S.

Feroz Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pallanta Chandra Rao Vs Pallanta Venkata Ramana

The Food Inspector Division - I Vs Jaikumar Patro

Sandipogula Thupan Vs The State of a.P.,Rep.by its Public Prosecutor