Allowed

Smt.Chenchili Ramanamma , Patta Ramanamma, v. Smt. Chenchili Krishnamma

Telangana HC21 Oct 2010CRP/4050/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition, setting aside a lower court's order that restored a default-dismissed election petition. The Court held that the petitioner's claim of incapacity was untenable and that restoration was futile as the respondent's tenure had expired.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Junior Civil Judge allowing IA No.434 of 2004 is set aside. No order as to costs.

Smt.Chenchili Ramanamma , Patta Ramanamma… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4050 of 2006

¶3

Dated:- 21st October, 2010

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Smt.Chenchili Ramanamma @ Patta Ramanamma

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

Smt.Chenchili Krishnamma

¶9

…Respondent

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4050 of 2006

¶11

ORDER:-

¶12

Aggrieved by the order and decree passed in I.A.No.434 of 2004 in E.O.P.No.1 of 2001 by the Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali, Srikakulam District, this revision is filed.

¶13

2. The petitioner herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below.

¶14

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶15

The petitioner, challenging the election of the first respondent as President of Gram Panchayat, Yelamanchili, Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam District, on the ground that she was minor, filed Election O.P.No.1 of 2001 before the Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali, Srikakulam District. Subsequently, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sarvakota Mandal, Srikakulam District, was examined by the petitioner on 10.06.2003 and the case was adjourned to 19.06.2003 and subsequently to

¶16

25.06.2003. However, since the petitioner did not appear before the Court below on both the days of hearing i.e. on 19.06.2003 and 25.06.2003, the E.O.P. was dismissed for default on 25.06.2003. Then the respondent got issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 04.02.2004 claiming damages for filing a false case against her. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 05.02.2004 and she had sent a reply notice on 19.02.2004. Then the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner claiming damages in O.S.No.15 of 2004 before the Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali, Srikakulam District. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a restoration petition along with I.A.No.434 of 2004 to condone the delay of 368 days in filing the restoration petition contending that she was suffering with Hcotro Euteries and she was unable to move from the bed and undergone medical treatment and, therefore, she could not attend the Court on 25.06.2003 and in the above circumstances, the delay occurred.

¶17

4. The respondent filed counter and had taken a specific plea that the petitioner got issued legal notice on 19.02.2004 and also filed Vakalat in O.S.No.15 of 2004 and as such, her contention that she was unable to move from the bed is far from truth.

¶18

5. The Court below, by impugned orders, allowed I.A.No.434 of 2004 condoning the delay holding that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for delay in approaching the Court. It was also held by the Court

¶19

below that the actual delay is only 123 days. Challenging the same, present revision is filed.

¶20

6. Heard both the learned counsel.

¶21

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause to condone the delay.

¶22

8. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any medical certificate in support of her claim that she was suffering from Hcotro Euteries and she was unable to move from the bed. It is not in dispute that she received the legal notice dated 04.02.2004 issued by the respondent and sent a reply notice on 19.02.2004. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner engaged an Advocate who filed Vakalat on 18.06.2004 in O.S.No.15 of 2004. The above facts reveal that the contention of the petitioner that she was unable to move from the bed is untenable. The Court should be liberal in condoning delay, but, where it appears that a party has not come to the Court with clean hands and his/her contentions prima facie appears to be false, the Court need not be liberal even in condoning the delay.

¶23

9. Moreover, in the instant case, the dispute is with regard to the election to the post of President of Gram Panchayat which tenure is for a period of five years. Admittedly, the E.O.P. was filed in the year 2001 challenging the election of the first respondent to the post of President of Gram Panchayat. Whatever may be the

¶24

contentions of both the parties, since the tenure of the post is only five years and the first respondent had already completed her tenure by the year 2006, the subject matter of E.O.P. itself has become infructuous and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings in E.O.P.

¶25

10. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondent herein / petitioner before the Court below submitted that restoration of the E.O.P is necessary to prove that the first respondent was minor on the day of her election to the post of President of Gram Panchayat.

¶26

11. It has to be seen that the E.O.P itself is to set aside the election of the first respondent to the post of President of Gram Panchayat and when her tenure had already been completed by the year 2006 itself, continuing the E.O.P. for mere declaration of her age would be futile.

¶27

12. Thus, it is clear that the Court below has committed en error by not taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. When an order is passed by the Court below by not taking into consideration certain admitted facts, the same amounts to perverse findings and they are certainly liable to be set aside by this Court by exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C.

¶28

13. In the light of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is

¶29

allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the Court below. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

_____________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 21^st October, 2010 Bvv

Smt.Chenchili Ramanamma , Patta Ramanamma, v. Smt. Chenchili Krishnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Chenchili Ramanamma , Patta Ramanamma, v. Smt. Chenchili Krishnamma

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

M/s. Economic Transport Organization Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Parupally Suresh Vs Vajinepalli Basavaiah

G.Anjaneyulu Vs K.Veera Narayana and Anther

Maremalla Satyanarayana, Vs Special Tahsildar (Lao) PWD Scheme

D. Manohar Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kakuturu Ramanamma Vs Arigundram Saralamma