Remanded

Gottipati Venkata Subbaiah Naidu v. Sadanala Sundaraiah (Died)

Telangana HC5 Nov 2013CRP/1897/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay. The revision court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the lower court to verify if notice was properly issued to the petitioner's advocate, given discrepancies in signatures on filed memos, before deciding afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissed is set aside; the matter is remanded to the lower court with directions to verify service on the advocate and decide afresh.

Gottipati Venkata Subbaiah Naidu Vs Sadanala Sundaraiah (Died) — Partition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No. 1897 of 2013

¶3

Order:

¶4

This Revision Petition is filed challenging the orders dated 26.11.2012 passed in I.A. No.502 of 2011 in O.S. No.103 of 2002 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner herein is the first defendant in the suit. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the suit for partition and separate possession. It appears that during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the first plaintiff died. The said suit was dismissed for default on 04.08.2006. Then the second respondent herein filed I.A. No.1491 of 2006 for restoration of the suit. The said petition was also dismissed for default on 10.04.2008. Then he filed I.A. No.964 of 2008 for restoration of I.A. No.1491 of 2006. As there was delay of 67 days in filing the restoration petition he filed I.A. No.859 of 2008 to condone the said delay. The lower Court allowed those IAs and restored the suit to file. Then the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and also IA No.502 of 2011 to condone the delay of 502 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The lower Court dismissed the said application by impugned orders dated 26.11.2012. Challenging the same, this revision petition has been filed.

¶6

The main contention of Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that admittedly O.S. No.103 of 2002 was dismissed for default on 04.08.2006 and consequently all proceedings are deemed to have been terminated and once the proceedings have been terminated, the relationship of client and the counsel engaged by

¶7

him ends. It is also his submission that though notice was served on Sri T. Srinivasulu, the counsel for the petitioner herein, in I.A. No.1491 of 2006, but the said IA was also dismissed for default and subsequently when the respondent filed I.A. No.859 of 2008 and I.A. No.964 of 2008 no notice has been served on the petitioner or his counsel. He has filed certified copies of the memos filed by the counsel for the respondent before the lower Court.

¶8

Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent, submits that no specific plea was taken by the petitioner herein that no notice was served on his counsel. It is further submitted that the petitioner had simply stated in his affidavit filed in I.A. No.502 of 2011 that he was not served with copies of the petition filed for restoration of the suit. It is also submitted that the advocate is agent of the party and notice given to the advocate on record is deemed to have been notice to the party and since in this case notice has been served on T. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner cannot say that no notice is served on him. Reliance is placed on a decision reported in Turlapati Nagabhushanam v. Kancheti Narasimhayya^[1] .

¶9

Sri O. Manohar Reddy, in reply, submits that the above said decision is not applicable since in the said case the advocate for the plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit.

¶10

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable?

¶11

I have gone through the rival contentions. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was given to Sri T. Srinivasulu, advocate, for the petitioner is concerned, there appears to be some confusion. Though Sri P. Sridhar Reddy,

¶12

learned counsel for the second respondent, submits that notice has been issued to T. Srinivasulu, advocate, but the purported signature of T. Srinivasulu on memos dated 28.11.2008 and 22.12.2008, filed in I.A. Nos. 859 of 2008 and 964 of 2008 appears to be not tallying with the signature of T. Srinivasulu in the memo, dated 27.11.2006, filed in I.A. No.1491 o 2006. Therefore, as a matter of fact, it has to be verified whether notice has been issued to T. Srinivasulu, advocate, in IA Nos.859 and 964 of 2008. It is not possible to verify the same without obtaining the affidavit of T. Srinivasulu, advocate, or without verifying his admitted signatures from the court records. As far as the legal point raised by the petitioner and respondent is concerned, the same need not be adverted to at this stage since I am inclined to remand the matter to the lower Court.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court with a specific direction to verify whether any notice has been issued to Sri T. Sreenivasulu, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner in I.A.Nos.859 and 964 of 2008 and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

¶14

Accordingly, the CRP is allowed. No costs.

¶15

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this CRP shall stand closed.

¶16

___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

Date: 05.11.2013 Nsr

¶18

[1] 1975(2) APLJ 356

Gottipati Venkata Subbaiah Naidu v. Sadanala Sundaraiah (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gottipati Venkata Subbaiah Naidu v. Sadanala Sundaraiah (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sravani Reddy, W/o.P.Sarath Reddy, Vs State of A.P. rep.

Lingam Tirumalesh, Vs The State of A.P.

Sanaga Ravindra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs B.Krishna

Singamreddy China Yanadi REddy Vs Mutukonda Venkata Krishna Reddy

Kurella Yethindra Lakshmi Venkata Sai Vs The State of Ap.