Allowed

Nagula Sarojini, v. Smt. P. Eshwaramma , Nagula Eshwaramma

Telangana HC10 Apr 2013AS/870/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed appeals challenging judgments delivered without jurisdiction. The initial suits were transferred, but the trial court wrongly pronounced judgment before the transfer order took effect. The judgments were set aside and the matter remanded to the proper court.

What did the court decide?

Judgments and decrees set aside; matter remanded to III Additional District Judge with notice to advocates; judgment to be delivered before June 2013.

Nagula Sarojini, Vs Smt. P. Eshwaramma… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

APPEAL SUIT Nos.870, 872, 873 and 949 OF 2012

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶4

All these appeals arise out of the judgments passed by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, in O.S. Nos.3 of 2006, 17 of 1996 and 26 of 1996

¶5

2. Without going into the merits of the case, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment delivered by the I Additional District Judge in all the above suits is without jurisdiction. All the three suits i.e., O.S. Nos.3 of 2006, 17 of 1996 and 26 of 1996 were clubbed together. Originally, the suits were transferred from the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and subsequently they were transferred to the Court of the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar. During the course of inspection of the District Court by the Learned Portfolio Judge, as per the instructions, the District Judge, Karimnagar, has passed an order on 08.08.2012 re-transmitting all the above suits along with other suits. In a connected matter in A.S. No.952 of 2012, this Court has called for the report from

¶6

the District Judge, Karimnagar and as per the information given by the learned District Judge, the order of transfer of the cases was received by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, on 09.08.2012. But, however, these suits were not transmitted and judgments were pronounced on 17.08.2012. In fact, as per the list of the cases, which were sought to be re-transferred to the III Additional District Judge, all the suits though they were at the stage of arguments were transferred except the cases which were reserved for judgment.

¶7

3. It appears the suit O.S. No.3 of 2006 was clubbed with O.S. No.17 of 1996 and O.S. No.26 of 1996. The appeal A.S. No.6 of 2013 was filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.26 of 1996 and the present appeal A.S. No.873 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiffs.

¶8

4. This Court has allowed the A.S. No.6 of 2013 on 04.01.2013 as the judgment of the Court below is without jurisdiction since the cases were already transferred. Thereafter, an application A.S.M.P. No.297 of 2013 was filed to review the judgment of the Court on the ground that the letter proposed by the District Judge on 08.08.2012 deals with transfer of cases except those which are reserved for judgment and all the three suits

¶9

were reserved for judgment and therefore it cannot be considered as a judgment delivered without jurisdiction. But the above contention was not accepted in that review petition since by the date of the proposed transfer, the suits were not reserved for judgment. In fact, the matter was reopened on 25.07.2012 for giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence and it was only on 13.08.2012 the matter was posted for judgment. Therefore, by the date when the order passed by the District Judge on 08.08.2012 for transferring of the suits in pursuance of the directions given by the Portfolio Judge, these matters are not reserved for judgment, it was only coming for further evidence. Therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the transfer of the suits by the District Judge has no application to the present cases.

¶10

5. It was also sought to be contended no notice was given by the Court below. In fact that stage comes only when the records were made over to the III Additional District Judge.

¶11

6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances and in view of the earlier judgment passed by this Court in the connected A.S. No.6 of 2013, the appeals are allowed

¶12

and the judgments and decrees passed by the I Additional District Judge are set-aside and the matters are remanded to the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar for disposal according to law after giving notice to the advocates on record. Judgment shall be delivered before June, 2013. It is left to the discretion of the trial Judge whether to allow any further evidence or not.

¶13

Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed and the matters are remanded to the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeal suits shall stand closed.

¶14

_______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶15

Date: 10.04.2013 Knl/Inl

Nagula Sarojini, v. Smt. P. Eshwaramma , Nagula Eshwaramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagula Sarojini, v. Smt. P. Eshwaramma , Nagula Eshwaramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Tenali National Club, Vs Palikuri Lakshmi Prasuna

P.Jyothi Vs The Authorized Signatory, Aircel Limited

Chemtura Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Matrix Agri Science Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Radhika Colony Residential Welfare Association, Vs Jaspal Singh

Vvss Estates Private Limited, Vs -

M/s. Venkateswara Fertilisers Co. Vs The State Bank of India