Allowed

Rachakonda Ram Murthy, v. Gunda Satyanarayana

Telangana HC27 Feb 2013CRP/1756/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed Civil Revision Petition setting aside an order dismissing an application to condone 149 days delay. Directed petitioner to file written statement in underlying suit within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 09.03.2012 in I.A.No.812 of 2011 set aside; delay in filing said application condoned; petitioner directed to file written statement within four weeks.

Rachakonda Ram Murthy, Vs Gunda Satyanarayana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

C.R.P.No.1756 of 2012

¶3

Dated 27-02-2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Rachakonda Ram Murthy

¶6

…Petitioner.

¶7

And

¶8

Gunda Satyanarayana

¶9

…Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶10

C.R.P. No.1756 OF 2012

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no representation on his behalf.

¶13

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent filed O.S.No.53 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had borrowed the said amount from him on 29.04.2009 for his business purpose and executed a promissory note.

¶14

According to the petitioner, the suit was posted for his appearance on 03.06.2011 and he could not attend the Court on that day and the Court below dismissed the suit ex parte. His specific case is that he is aged about 74 years and has been suffering with heart and kidney problem and has been taking treatment. It is also his contention that his son - Rachakonda Srinivas Rao left the house without informing anybody as his creditors cheated and duped him and in the

¶15

above circumstances their family members were in sorrow and he could not lookafter the Court proceedings. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.812 of 2011 in the suit to condone the delay of 149 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. The Court below dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner failed to file medical record to substantiate his claim. Along with this revision, the petitioner has filed medical record issued by Pabba Super Specialties, Heart Care Center, Karimnagar.

¶16

Having regard the age of the petitioner and the circumstances explained by him, and in view of the medical record filed along with this revision, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 09.03.2012 in I.A.No.812 of 2011 in O.S.No.53 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. Consequently, I.A.No.812 of 2011 stands allowed and delay is condoned. However, the petitioner is directed to file written statement in the suit within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶17

In consequence, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶19

Date: 27.02.2013 SRP/GHN

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶21

C.R.P.No.1756 OF 2012

¶22

Dated 27.02.2013

¶23

Srp/GHN

Rachakonda Ram Murthy, v. Gunda Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachakonda Ram Murthy, v. Gunda Satyanarayana

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

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Patchava Padma

A.Kishore Kumar Vs The State of Ap

Smt.B.Supraja Vs B.Srikanth

Banda Ramachandra Reddy Vs Uppu Ramesh

Ahmad , Mohamad Vs v.Sreenivasulu

Rachakonda Ram Murthy Vs Bonagiri Anjaiah