C.R.P. against an order transferring promissory note documents between two suits filed on the same day due to a clerical mistake. High Court dismissed the revision. Relied on precedent regarding inherent powers to rectify bona fide mistakes.
Petitioner ordered to bear no order as to costs. Application to transfer documents dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.659 OF 2010
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 08-12-2009 in I.A.No.165 of 2009 in O.S.No.83 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli, wherein the said application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 151 CPC to send for the pronote filed in O.S.No.84 of 2006 to the file of this suit, was allowed.
2. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
3 . The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.83 of 2006 for recovery of amount due under promissory note against the petitioner/defendant. It is stated that the husband of the respondent/ plaintiff filed another suit O.S.No.84 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.83 of 2006 were filed in the other suit O.S.No.84 of 2006 and the documents pertaining to O.S.No.84 of 2006 were filed in this
suit O.S.No.83 of 2006 and the said mistake was purely clerical.
The respondent/plaintiff, therefore, filed I.A.No.165 of 2009 under Section 151 CPC to send for the promissory note filed in O.S.No.84 of 2006 to this suit. It is stated that a similar application was filed in O.S.No.84 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.
4. Under similar circumstances, this Court in M.SATYANARAYANA @ PEDDA RAJU V. KATAMA RAJU AND ANOTHE R[1] observed that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC can be invoked to rectify the bona fide mistake by ordering to send
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.
5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
22nd April, 2010 Lrkm.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.R.P.No.659 OF 2010
Between:-
Jada Pydappadu
…Petitioner A n d
Mannala Appayamma
…Respondent
[1] 2009(6) ALT 93
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision court should interfere when the trial court allowed a transfer of pronote files due to a bona fide clerical mistake.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.SATYANARAYANA @ PEDDA RAJU V. KATAMA RAJU AND ANOTHEReferred¶8
2009(6) ALT 93
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jada Pydappadu
Mannala Appayamma
G.V.SEETHAPATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
