Remanded

A.Manik Rao v. Mrs. K.Suneetha Wesley

Telangana HC29 Jul 2011CRP/5214/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court quashed appellate orders granting interim suspension due to procedural lapses involving lack of notice. It remanded the matter for fresh disposal with a four-week timeline while maintaining the interim suspension pending the outcome.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders recalled; matter remanded to appellate Court for fresh disposal within four weeks with notice; interim suspension continued until then.

A.Manik Rao Vs Mrs. K.Suneetha Wesley — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5214 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 28.8.2010 passed in I.A.No. 2108 of 2010 in I.A.No. 1778 of 2010 in A.S.No. 76 of 2010 on the file of First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶5

Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 91 of 2000. He filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale-dated 19.12.1988 and for possession of the suit schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-plaintiff filed an appeal i.e. A.S.No. 76 of 2010 along with an application under Order 41 Rule 5(1) of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to pass orders by suspending the operation of the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2010 passed in O.S.No. 91 of 2000. The lower appellate Court on 14.7.2010 passed the following order:

¶6

“Issue urgent notice to the respondents. Meanwhile, interim suspension subject to deposit of suit costs by the petitioner/appellant on or before 21.7.2010. Call on 21.7.2010.”

¶7

Again on 21.7.2010 the lower appellate Court passed the following order:

¶8

“Condition complied Memo filed. Petition is allowed granting stay of operation of the decree”

¶9

Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court below ought to have seen that having passed an order on 14.7.2010 ordering notice and directing the petitioner/appellant to deposit costs granted interim suspension till 21.7.2010 and finding its order dated 14.7.2010 complied with, having allowed the application suspending the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2010 on 21.7.2010, it ought not to have disturbed the order dated 21.7.2010 due to no fault of the petitioner. He also submits that the Court below ought to have seen that it has exercised its judicial discretion rightly and aptly and having

¶11

allowed the same ought not to have vacated the order prejudicing the interest of the petitioner.

¶12

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order was passed without hearing them and without giving any opportunity to them.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused material made available on record.

¶14

As seen from the record, the lower appellate Court granted interim suspension subject to deposit of the suit costs by the respondent-appellant therein on or before 21.7.2010 and the respondent-appellant deposited the same and a memo was filed to that effect on 21.7.2010. But the concerned clerk has not put a note to the Presiding Officer about the notice of the petitioners/respondents whether it was served or not. As note was not placed before the Presiding Officer the petition was allowed without serving notice to the petitioners/respondents. Therefore, the appellate Court allowed the I.A.No. 2108 of 2010 and the orders dated 21.7.2010 passed in I.A.No. 1778 of 2010 are recalled. Therefore, in my view, the appellate Court rightly

¶15

recalled the orders dated 21.7.2010 passed in I.A.No. 1778 of 2010 and I see no reasons to interfere with the same. However, the appellate Court is directed to dispose of the I.A.No. 1778 of 2010 afresh after giving an opportunity to the as as respondents, expeditiously possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. The interim suspension granted on 14.7.2010 shall continue to operate till then since the petitionerappellant deposited the costs.

¶16

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

¶18

DATE: 29.07.2011 KA Note: Furnish copy in one week.

A.Manik Rao v. Mrs. K.Suneetha Wesley

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Manik Rao v. Mrs. K.Suneetha Wesley

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

Sri Rajesh Singh, Vs D. Mahesh Chandra

A.P.Kuruma Sangam Vs Koride Umakanth

M/s. Shalli Estates Pvt.LTd., Vs M.Sesha Reddy

K. Sajjan Raj, Vs Gopisetty Chandra Mouli

M/s. Cooling Crafts, Proprietary Concern, Vs P. Uma Shankar Rao

Smt. Edulkanti Hamsamma, Vs C. Manohar Reddy