Allowed

M/s. Gayatri Sugars Limited, v. M/s. Yeses Engineers and Contractors

Telangana HC8 Jul 2011CRP/1007/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC to assail the dismissal of a condonation of delay petition. The court set aside the lower court order subject to the petitioner paying costs to the plaintiff, directing the lower court to condone the delay and proceed with the suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to pay Rs.20,000 costs; lower court directed to condone delay and proceed.

M/s. Gayatri Sugars Limited, Vs M/s. Yeses… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1007 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {“CPC” for brevity}, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 03.12.2010 passed in I.A.No.349 of 2008 in O.S.No.382 of 2003 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 CPC seeking to condone the delay of 1420 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set the ex parte judgment and decree dated 02.08.2004.

¶5

The Court below dismissed the said petition as the petitioner had knowledge of service of summons for appearance before the Court below but failed to furnish any reasons or explanation as to why necessary steps are not taken thereafter.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Company is prosecuting the matter before BIFR and at the time of service of notice, the petitioner shifted its office to Banjara Hills from Somajiguda and therefore, there was no valid service of notice. The petitioner’s company is under the rehabilitation and in view of the bar contained under Section 22 of the SICA Act; it was under impression that no proceedings are maintainable against the company and hence, could not proceed with the matter.

¶7

In the circumstances of the case, to see that the matter is adjudicated on merits in a suit for recovery of money involving huge amount, it is felt desirable that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to proceed with the matter.

¶8

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order

¶9

dated 03.12.2010 in I.A.No.349 of 2008 in O.S.No.382 of 2003 is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.20,000 {Rupees twenty thousand only} to the plaintiff towards costs within a period of two {2} weeks from today. On such payment, the Court below is directed to condone the delay of 1420 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte judgment dated 02.08.2004 and proceed with the matter.

¶10

_____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J)

¶11

8^th July 2011 RRB

M/s. Gayatri Sugars Limited, v. M/s. Yeses Engineers and Contractors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Gayatri Sugars Limited, v. M/s. Yeses Engineers and Contractors

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

B.M.Premraj Vs M.Chandra Mouli

Anwar Ahmed Vs M/s. Margadarsi Chits Pvt. Ltd., (Kukatpally)

Smt. K. Sri Rekha Vs Sri Kompella Vijay Krishna

M/s. Nav Samatha Transport Agency Vs Smt. Sarojilatha Agarwal

C.Ram Reddy Vs D.Ramesh Reddy

Mahabir Prasad Gandhi Vs Smt. Geeta Paropkari