Allowed

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada v. Namburupeda Narasimha Rao

Telangana HC22 Mar 2011CMA/208/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging an order of remand passed by the first appellate court which directed the matter back to the trial court for considering a criminal judgment copy. The High Court set aside the remand order, directing the appellate court to dispose of the matter on merits, and directed the trial court to decide the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the order of remand is set aside; the First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the matter within three months.

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATE.22-03-2011.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.208 OF 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Foreman and Managing Partner, Jasthi Vijaya Kumar, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, Aged 47 Years, Business. --- Appellant/

¶8

Respondent/

¶9

Plaintiff.

¶10

AND Namburu Peda Narasimha Rao and three others. --- Respondents/ Appellants/ Defendants.

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶13

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.208 OF 2008

¶14

JUDGEMENT:

¶15

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against judgment dated 20-11-2007 passed in A.S. No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, preferred against judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.19 of 1998 remanding the matter to the trial Court for the purpose of considering judgment copy in C.C. No.264 of 1996 for appropriate adjudication of the matter.

¶16

2. The Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit and respondent in the First Appeal, whereas the Respondents herein are the defendants in the suit and Appellants in the First Appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred as arrayed in the suit.

¶17

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,20,036/- on the basis of a chit transaction against the defendants. The plaintiff and defendants contested the matter and ultimately the suit was decreed for Rs.61,300/- with costs and with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till the date of realization of the amount of Rs.61,300/- following which the Appeal was preferred.

¶18

4. On behalf of the plaintiff PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-29 were marked, on behalf of the defendants DW.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

¶19

5. Having gone through the judgment passed in the Appeal it is

¶20

quite surprising that just for the purpose of considering a copy of C.C. No.264 of 1996 the matter was remanded to the Trial Court. In stead of that the first appellate Court could have itself considered the judgment and disposed of the Appeal taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances. If fresh evidence was to be recorded with regard to any facts in issue, that may be altogether a different context. By doing so, lot of injustice is done to either both the parties or one of the parties, as the case may be, they are subjected to wastage of their time and loss of amount in the form of expenditure. The question of remand should be very carefully exercised. It should not be resorted to unless grave need arises.

¶21

6. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the order of remand made by the first appellate Court is liable to be set aside.

¶22

7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the First Appellate Court with a direction to the First Appellate Court to dispose of the matter taking into consideration the over all circumstances of the case.

¶23

Further, as the matter has become very old, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 22-03-2011. Dsh.

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada v. Namburupeda Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada v. Namburupeda Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Chilukuri Padmaja

The Union of India Vs C. Bujjaiah

K. Sulochana Vs Mr. Bhagavandas

The Union of India Vs v.Srinivas Reddy

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada Vs Namburu Durga Rao

Union of India Vs Garnepudi Sunitha