Dismissed

Nalla Judson v. Jayaraj

Telangana HC28 Jan 2013CRP/162/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition filed by a plaintiff aggrieved by dismissal of an application to reopen a civil suit matter for advancing arguments. The High Court held that since the plaintiff availed oral arguments at length and failed to file written arguments as directed, the revision allows no scope for interference.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand dismissed.

Nalla Judson Vs Jayaraj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.No.162 of 2013 Dated 28-1-2013

¶2

Between: Nalla Judson.

…Petitioner.

And: J.Jayaraj.

….Respondent.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.No.162 of 2013

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 22^nd November, 2012 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.1870 of 2012 in O.S.No.1340 of 2001.

¶9

Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.1340 of 2001. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit before the Court below for the sake of convenience.

¶10

Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1340 of 2001 against the defendant seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, legal representatives, workmen and successors-in-interest, in any way, from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the 12’ width common passage, apart from 1 ½’ width land left by him abutting to his house.

¶11

During the pendency of the suit in question, the application in I.A.No.1870 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff seeking to reopen the matter to advance his arguments. The Court below having observed that the petition for reopening the matter needs no consideration since the opportunity to file written arguments was not availed by the plaintiff and that on 19-11-2012, the counsel for the plaintiff has argued at length for more than one hour and that the application is filed only for dragging on the matter, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is filed by the plaintiff.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Court below dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff seeking to reopen the matter for advancing the arguments, but it ought to have given an opportunity for further arguments by reopening the matter. Therefore, he seeks to allow this revision by setting aside the order impugned.

¶14

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant submits that on 20-11-2012, the learned counsel for the plaintiff before the Court below submitted his oral arguments at length for more than one hour and then the matter was posted for the arguments on the other side to 21-11-2012 and that on the same day, the Court below heard the arguments and reserved the matter for judgment.

¶15

He further submits that even though an opportunity was given to the plaintiff to file written arguments, he did not avail the same and as such, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and hence, the order impugned needs no interference by this Court.

¶16

Perused the material available on record.

¶17

Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2001. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction. The present application i.e. I.A.No.1870 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to advance further arguments on his side.

¶18

As seen from the record, on 16-11-2012, when both parties were directed by the Court below to file their written arguments by 19-11-2012, they did not choose to file their written arguments on that day and sought time. On 20-11-2012, the learned counsel for the plaintiff before the Court below argued the matter at length for more than one hour and thereupon, the matter was posted to 21-11-2012 for the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant. On that day, the Court below heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant and reserved the matter for judgment.

¶19

At this juncture, the plaintiff before the Court below filed the application in I.A.No.1870 of 2012 in the suit seeking to reopen the matter which needs no consideration as the opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the plaintiff to file written arguments which was not availed by him. Apart from that, on 19-11-2012, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued the case at length, as rightly observed by the Court below.

¶20

In these circumstances, I do not find any justification to

¶21

interfere with the order impugned as it does not suffer from any legal infirmity and as such, this C.R.P. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶22

As a sequel to the disposal of the C.R.P., Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶23

____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 28-1-2013 Ssv/Dvs

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶25

C.R.P.No.162 of 2013

¶26

Dated 28-1-2013

Nalla Judson v. Jayaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalla Judson v. Jayaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Modegunta Ramachandraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Dasarath Reddy Vs District Collector

Y.Sathi Reddy Vs G.Anantha Ramu

Mohd.Habeeb (Died) Per Lr Smt. Habeebunnisa w/o.Habeeb Vs The Sarpanch

V.Rajeswari, W/o Late v.Mohan Rao Vs Mr. J.Pratap Reddy

Tata Teleservices Limited, Vs a.P.Electricity Regulatory Commission