Disposed

Neyyila Bhaskara Rao v. Neyyila Mohana Rao

Telangana HC12 Aug 2011CRP/3001/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honourable Justice B. Chandra Kumar disposed of Civil Revision Petition No. 3001 of 2011. The Court dismissed the revision praying to impound a settlement deed filed belatedly, observing the petitioner ought to have applied earlier. However, the Court permitted the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty to mark the document.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay deficit stamp duty to mark settlement document subject to proof and relevancy.

Neyyila Bhaskara Rao Vs Neyyila Mohana Rao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3001 OF 2011

¶3

DATE:12.08.2011

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

NEYYILA BHASKARA RAO

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

NEYYILA MOHANARAO & OTHERS

¶9

…RESPONDENTS.

¶10

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3001 OF 2011

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2011 in I.A.No:37 of 2011 in O.S.No:22 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District.

¶15

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed I.A.37 of 2011 under order 13 rule 8 C.P.C read with section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, seeking to send the settlement deed dated 5.2.2000 for

¶16

impounding, to the District Collector, Srikakulam.

¶17

The lower Court having observed that the trial has been completed and the suit has been posted for orders and that the petitioner ought to have filed this application at the initial stage itself and that the petitioner has purposefully kept quite for all these days and he has come up with this application at this belated stage, dismissed the petition.

¶18

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the settlement deed was filed along with the suit itself. But, due to inadvertence, he could not file the application.

¶20

Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2008. It may be a fact that the petitioner might have filed the settlement deed along with the suit.

¶21

However, the fact remains that the trial has been completed and the suit has been posted for orders.

¶22

In view of the same, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court.

¶23

However, if the petitioner is prepared to pay the deficit stamp duty in accordance with law, the lower Court may permit him to pay the deficit stamp duty and give him an opportunity to mark the said document subject to the proof and relevancy.

¶24

Subject to the above observation, this revision petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶25

_____________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar.

¶26

Note: CC in three (3) days. (BO) Gurc. Date:12.08.2011

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶28

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3001 OF 2011

¶29

DATE:12.08.2011

Neyyila Bhaskara Rao v. Neyyila Mohana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neyyila Bhaskara Rao v. Neyyila Mohana Rao

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

Shaik Mahmood Ahmed Vs Ghulam Mahmood Siddiqui

Qudrathunnisa Begum, (died) per L.Rs., 2 to 4 Vs Khairunnisa Begum

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Vs A.E. Eswara Mudalaiar

Pukkala Syamasundara Rao, Vs Sana Malathi Devi

Pinnasi Jogamma (died) Vs Singupalli Narayana

Varanasi Srinivasa Rao Vs Malla Chalapati Rao