This judgment dismisses a civil revision petition filed regarding an order condoning delay in restoring a suit. The High Court held there were no justifiable reasons to interfere with the trial court's discretion when costs were payable.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs to any party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
Civil Revision Petition No. 914 of 2011
Dated: 21.03.2011
Between: Kurasa Surynarayana, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And Lakku Srinivsa Rao, West Godavari District. … Respondent
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
Civil Revision Petition No. 914 of 2011
O R D E R :
The petitioner before this Court is the defendant in O.S.No. 379 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.
The suit is filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money. After the written statement was filed and while the matter was coming up for evidence of the plaintiff, it was dismissed for default on 10.09.2009. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed an application for restoration of the suit on 11.02.2010 along with I.A.No.60 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the restoration petition. Along with his application, he filed a Medical Certificate to substantiate his plea that he was unwell and was advised to take rest.
Though the petition was opposed by the defendant, the Court below by order dated 28.01.2011 condoned the delay on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Against the said order, the present revision petition is filed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below in condoning the delay on payment of costs. The order under revision cannot be said to have suffered from any material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under law and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_______________ G. ROHINI, J
Date: 21.03.2011 KLP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's discretion in condoning the delay in filing a restoration petition, subject to payment of costs, warranted interference in civil revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kurasa Surynarayana
Lakku Srinivsa Rao
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
