Dismissed

Chandrika, v. M/s. Saptavandana Chits and Finances Pvt., Ltd.

Telangana HC5 Nov 2012CRP/2916/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the lower court's decision granting an extension of time under Section 148 CPC to restore a suit dismissed for default. The Court found the discretion exercised sound and judicious, dismissing the revision petition but directing the trial to conclude within six months.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; interim stay vacated; suit to be disposed of within six months.

Chandrika, Vs M/s. Saptavandana Chits and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2916 of 2012

BETWEEN

G. Chandrika.

... PETITIONER

AND

M/s. Saptavandana Chits & Finances Pvt. Ltd and four others.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. ARAVINDU MATURI Counsel for the Respondents: MR. NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Defendant in O.S.No.702 of 2006 is aggrieved by the order of the Court below dated 10.11.2010 in accepting the first respondent/plaintiff’s application I.A.No.469 of 2010 filed under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶15

2. The facts of the case show that the first respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.2013 2009 seeking condonation of delay of 536 days in filing I.A.No.2014 of 2009 seeking to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default on 14.12.2007. On the said applications,

¶16

on contest, the Court below passed a conditional order on 18.02.2010 allowing I.A.No.2013 of 2009 on condition of the plaintiff depositing costs of Rs.1,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority and get ready with the witness on the date of hearing and for reporting compliance of the condition, the matter was posted to 24.02.2010.

¶17

It appears that the orders in I.A.Nos.2013 and 2014 of 2009 were to be pronounced on 02.02.2010 but on that date, the orders were not passed and they came to be passed only on 18.02.2010. The first respondent/plaintiff, therefore, filed an application that the orders so proposed to be passed allowing I.A.No.2013 of 2009 conditionally was not within the knowledge of the petitioner nor it was recorded in the

¶18

A Diary and as such, first respondent/plaintiff could not comply with the conditional order within time. The first respondent/plaintiff, however, states that it has complied with the order by depositing the amount on 03.03.2012 and therefore, sought extension of time till that date by filing I.A.No.469 of 2010 under Section 148 CPC.

¶19

The petitioner herein contested the said application herein by filing a detailed counter. Under the impugned order dated 10.11.2010, the Court below has allowed I.A.No.469 of 2010 duly taking note of the fact that the order of the Court below dated 02.02.2010 was not recorded in the A Dairy and also keeping in view the legal position, as settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. H.C. UPADHYA v. MRS. A.R. RUSTOM FRAM [2006 (2) ALT 170] that extension of time under Section 148 CPC can be entertained even after expiry of time. The said order is questioned in this revision.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various contentions to project that the first respondent/plaintiff has been negligent in prosecuting the suit. Learned counsel also pointed out, on merits, that the chit transaction, in question, is linked with other chit transactions, which was a matter, which is brought out in the trial of the suit.

¶21

4. However, this Court, at this stage, is not concerned with the merits of

¶22

the matter and the only issue required to be considered is that whether the order of the Court below, impugned in this revision petition, dated 10.11.2010 requires to be revised. In my opinion, the discretion exercised by the Court below under Section 148 CPC is sound, judicious and requires no interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Consequently, the civil revision petition stands dismissed and interim stay granted on 09.07.2012 stands vacated. The trial Court shall now endeavour to take up the trial of the suit and dispose of the suit, expeditiously, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions, on merits, before the Court below during the trial of the suit. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶25

November 5, 2012 DSK

Chandrika, v. M/s. Saptavandana Chits and Finances Pvt., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika, v. M/s. Saptavandana Chits and Finances Pvt., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms.Sahara India Commerdal Corporation Ltd. Vs Ms.Sahara States Owners Welfare Association

Dr. C. Anjaneyulu Vs Dr. C. Srujana

Jakka Venkata Subbarayudu Vs S.Venkata Rami Reddy

M/s.Sree and Sree Developers Vs Ganta Prasada Rao

Bamino Agro Industries Limited, Vs S.V.M.V. Ananda Rao

Managing Committee Madina Masjid Vs Khaja Mohiuddin