The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking to challenge an order that restored an adjourned application to the file, ruling that the lower court's exercise of discretion was not perverse.
The civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
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. 1207 of 2013
DATE: 15.03.2013
Between: Sudhir Madisetty …Petitioner And V.Suresh and another. …Respondent
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1207 of 2013
O R D E R:
The revision petitioner is the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.594 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the XII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The first respondent herein filed the said suit seeking a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the 1st defendant. After the evidence on behalf of both sides was concluded, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.13 of 2013 with a prayer to reopen his evidence stating that he intends to examine one more witness. Though the said application was opposed by the revision petitioner-second defendant contending that the plaintiff has been trying to drag on the proceedings, the Court allowed I.A.No.13 of 2013 by order dated 05.02.2013 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. However, by the date of the next hearing i.e., 08.02.2013 the plaintiff failed to pay the costs and there was no representation on his behalf. Therefore, the Court below closed the evidence and posted the suit for arguments on 18.02.2013.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.62 of 2013 for restoration of I.A.No.13 of 2013 and the same was ordered on 21.02.2013 subject to payment of costs of Rs.700/-. Aggrieved by the said order dated 21.02.2013 the present revision petition is filed by defendant No.2.
Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision.
As noticed above, I.A.No.13 of 2013 was allowed by order dated 05.02.2013 itself and the said order became final. However, the said
petition stood dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff failed to pay the costs within the time fixed. By the order under revision the said order of dismissal was set aside and I.A.No.13 of 2013 was restored to file again on payment of costs. It was also recorded in the order under revision that the defendants did not oppose the restoration of I.A.No.13 of 2013 and they reported no counter in I.A.No.62 of 2013. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be held to be perverse or illegal. Therefore, the order under revision which does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law warrants no interference by this Court.
Hence, the civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
__________________ G. Rohini,J
Date:15.03.2013 KLP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's order allowing restoration of an instituted application upon payment of costs despite the plaintiff's subsequent failure to appear.
Sudhir Madisetty
Suresh
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
