Dismissed

D. Subramanyam v. Vaagdevi Educationa Society

Telangana HC8 Nov 2012CRP/825/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court's rejection of an application to condone delay for filing irrelevant byelaws of a different society. The court held the application was frivolous and intended to protract litigation, finding no error in the trial court's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of original petition within three months.

D. Subramanyam Vs Vaagdevi Educationa Society — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.825 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Respondents 2 to 10 herein filed O.P.No.94 of 2007 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, for declaration to the effect that the resolutions passed by respondents 11 to 19, in relation to the 1^st respondent-Society, are null and void. The petitioners herein got themselves impleaded as respondents. The trial of the O.P. commenced. At this stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1093 of 2009, under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the document viz., Xerox copy of byelaws of Sreenivasa Educational Society, which is altered by the 4^th respondent’s husband, by name B. Krishna Reddy. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 18.01.2010. Hence, this C.R.P.

¶5

Heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Pramod, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶6

On the face of it, the I.A., filed by the petitioners, is frivolous. Basically, no relief was claimed against the petitioners herein and they got themselves impleaded in the O.P. It may be true that at the stage o f condonation of delay in filing a document, the Court need not examine the admissibility, or relevancy etc. However, a party filing such an application is not free to dump anything into the Court and require the Court to condone the delay.

¶7

The petitioners wanted the trial Court to receive Xerox copies of byelaws in relation to a different society, altogether. It is just un-understandable as to how such a document can be received. The effort appears, just to protract the litigation. The trial Court has taken

¶8

correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶9

The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the O.P., at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The miscellaneous petition filed in this civil revision petition shall also stand disposed of.

¶11

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶12

Dated:08.11.2012

¶13

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶15

Civil Revision Petition No.1008 of 2010

¶16

08.11.2012

¶17

D. Subramanyam v. Vaagdevi Educationa Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Subramanyam v. Vaagdevi Educationa Society

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

Vanamali Narasimhaswamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jasti Purna Chandra Lakshmi Sujatha Vs The District Collector

Gummuluri Muralidhara Rao, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government

Nekkalapudi Venkata Subba Rao Vs Veeramachaneni Venkata Subbamma

Singiri Deepthi Vs Katamreddy Malakonda Reddy

Aripineti Vijaya Bhaskar Vs Sk. Mazam Saheb