Partly allowed

Telugu Murali v. Cmi Service Society, Bellampally, Adilabad District

Telangana HC17 Aug 2011CRP/1648/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioners challenged an order allowing respondents to file written statements after their representatives filed invalid ones. The high court set aside the striking down of previous defenses partly allowed slightly allowing the revision petition. Respondents would be directed to make an application to add them as defendants in the suit. No order as to costs).

What did the court decide?

Order passed by trial court striking down earlier written statement set aside; receiving of petitioners' written statement confirmed; respondents directed to apply to be added as defendants.

Telugu Murali Vs Cmi Service Society… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

C.R.P.NOs.1585 and 1648 OF 2011

¶3

DATED: 17.08.2011

¶4

C.R.P.NOs.1585 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Telugu Murali and another	.. Petitioners
And
CMI Service Society and others and others	.. Respondents
C.R.P.NOs.1648 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
Telugu Murali and another	.. Petitioners
And
CMI Service Society and others and others	.. Respondents

¶5

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶6

C.R.P.NOs.1585 and 1648 OF 2011

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

These civil revision petitions are filed against the common order, dated 24.03.2011 passed by the IX Additional District Judge at Kamareddy in I.A.Nos.194 and 195 of 2011 in O.S.No.18 of 2009.

¶9

2. I have heard Sri C.R.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants 7 and 8.

¶10

3. In the suit filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs 1 and 2 Father Joseph Manjaly So Ouseph and Sister Elsy Alias Elsy PM filed the written statement. As could be seen from the description of the defendants 7 and 8 mentioned in the plaint, defendant No.7 represents the society, whereas defendant No.8 is shown in her private capacity. However, the persons, who filed the written statement, are not the persons, who are mentioned in the cause title of the plaint as defendants 7 and 8. The learned trial Court framed the issues and commenced the trial, PW.1 was examined in chief and he was yet to be cross examined. At that stage the respondents in the revision petition came before the trial Court and filed petitions i.e. I.A.Nos.194 and 195 of 2011 under Section 151 C.P.C. to eschew the written statement filed by the defendants on the ground that they do not represent the defendant society and they are not entitled to file the written statement on behalf of the society and also they further sought to permit them to file written statement stating that they are

¶11

authorized by the society to represent the society and to prosecute the legal matters on behalf of the society. The learned trial Court allowed the petitions filed by the respondents/defendants 7 and 8 on condition of depositing costs of RS.2500/-. The respondents deposited the costs and filed written statement within the time allowed by the trial Court.

¶12

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the respondents filed applications under Section 151 C.P.C. before the trial Court two years and four months after filing of the written statement by defendants 7 and 8. There is no provision in law to eschew the written statement of the defendants already filed and therefore, the common order is liable to be set aside.

¶13

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the persons, who filed the written statement are not defendants 7 and 8 mentioned in the cause title of the plaint, the written statement already on record filed by the persons i.e. Father Joseph Manjaly So Ouseph and Sister Elsy Alias Elsy PM, who do not represent the society is not valid in law and the learned trial Court did not commit any error in allowing the petitions.

¶14

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel, I am of the view that the Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 151 C.P.C. can pass appropriate order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the learned Court below ought not to have struck down the written statement filed by Father Joseph Manjaly So Ouseph and Sister Elsy Alias Elsy PM as defendants 7 and 8 earlier, since the revision

¶15

petitioners are contending that in fact, they filed the written statement representing the society. However, this is a matter to be decided in the course of the trial by the learned trial Court. Further since the persons, who filed the written statement are not said to be the defendants 7 and 8 whose names are mentioned in the cause title of the plaint, the respondents can be permitted to file their written statement. In fact, the respondents ought to have made an application in the first instance to add them as defendants in the suit and then they ought to have urged before the trial Court to permit them to file written statement. Further, the learned trial Court without observing the correct procedure struck down the written statement earlier filed in the name of Father Joseph Manjaly So Ouseph and Sister Elsy Alias Elsy PM, defendants 7 and 8 and received the written statement filed by the respondents.

¶16

7. In the given situation, therefore, the common order passed by the learned trial Court insofar as to striking down the written statement filed earlier in the name of Father Joseph Manjaly So Ouseph and Sister Elsy Alias Elsy PM , defendants 7 and 8 is set aside, receiving of written statement of the revision petitioners is confirmed. However, the respondents/defendants 7 and 8 are directed to make an application to add them as defendants in the suit which shall be disposed of by the learned trial Court.

¶17

8. With the directions indicated above, these revision petitions are partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

_________________ Date: 17.08.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J Note: Issue c.c in a week b/o kvrm

¶19

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶20

C.R.P.NOs.1585 and 1648 OF 2011

¶21

DATE: 17.08.2011

Telugu Murali v. Cmi Service Society, Bellampally, Adilabad District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Telugu Murali v. Cmi Service Society, Bellampally, Adilabad District

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

Kuruva Gopal, Vs Kuruva Mustur Ramanjaneyulu , Kuruva Ramanjaneyuru

Agricultural Market Committee Vs G.Vithoba

Polumati VinodA-1 Vs Polumati Surekha

Kondapalli Meenakesava Reddy, Vs Chalasani Rajeswari

Telugu Murali Vs Cmi Service Society, Bellampally, Adilabad District

The State of a.P., Vs Mallela Vijaya Lakshmi