Allowed

T. Ramaiah, v. Thota Ramaiah

Telangana HC3 Oct 2013CRP/271/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the impugned orders that dismissed the suit for partition. The trial suit filed in 1998 for partition of immovable properties involving valuable property rights was directed to be disposed of on merits within four months, disregarding the third party's claim of dishonest procedural conduct.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; I.A. stands allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to respondents; suit to be disposed of within four months.

T. Ramaiah, Vs Thota Ramaiah — Partition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.271 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment dated 31.10.2008 passed by the District Judge, Chittoor, in C.M.A.No.58 of 2004 whereby the learned Judge confirmed the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in I.A.No.979 of 2004 in O.S.No.978 of 1998 on the file of

¶5

Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the revision petition, are as under:

¶6

The case of the revision petitioner is that he filed the suit for partition and the same was dismissed for default on 29.06.2004 as none appeared on his behalf. According to him, on 29.06.2004 he appeared before the Court during the call work and requested time for conducting trial, since he applied for certified copies of documents at Registrar Office; that the matter was kept aside and he waited till 2 p.m. and during lunch time, he went to the Registrar’s Office to receive the certified copies, which are required in the above said suit and that he came back to the Court at 3.30 P.M., but in the meanwhile suit was dismissed for default due to his nonappearance and non-representation. Hence, he filed the I.A. under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the dismissal order dated 29.06.2004.

¶7

The Court below dismissed the I.A. by order dated 1110-2004. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed C.M.A.No.58 of 2004 and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Chittoor. Hence, this revision.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit for partition, important valuable property rights of the petitioner are involved, hence it is appropriate that the revision petitioner would be given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. He further submits that the reason given by the revision petitioner for prosecuting the suit was not properly considered by the Courts below.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that certified copies were issued to the revision petitioner on 28.06.2004 itself, a day prior to the date on which the suit was dismissed for default, as such the reason given by the revision petitioner for setting aside the dismissal order is not a genuine one and only for the purpose of filing petition, said plea was taken by him.

¶10

The lower Court has elaborately dealt with the matter and observed that this Court gave a direction to it to dispose of the matter within the specified time. More over, the suit is of the year 1998 and the trial has not been commenced as on 29.06.2004. The reason given by the revision petitioner for his non-appearance is also not genuine as the certified copies were delivered to him on 28.06.2004. Therefore, the conduct of the revision petitioner shows that only to drag on

¶11

the matter and harass the respondents, he filed I.A. in the trial Court. The lower appellate Court further observed that though the appeal is numbered in the year 2004, the petitioner has not evinced any interest till the matter was posted as last chance.

¶12

In view of the findings of both the Courts below, it appears that the revision petitioner was prosecuting the suit diligently. But, however, as important valuable property rights are involved in this suit, which was filed for partition of immovable properties, the Apex Court and this Court many a time held that when valuable rights of the parties are involved, it is better to adjudicate the matter on merits.

¶13

In view of the above, the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2008 passed in C.M.A.No.58 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Chittoor, as well as the order dated 11.10.2004 passed in I.A.No.979 of 2004 in O.S.No.978 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, are set aside and consequently I.A.No.979 of 2004 stands allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to respondents within four weeks. In default, I.A. stands dismissed.

¶14

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above.

¶15

Since the suit is of the year 1998, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same, within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending,

¶17

if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

____________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶19

Date: 03-10-2013 pab

T. Ramaiah, v. Thota Ramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Ramaiah, v. Thota Ramaiah

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

Man Mohan Singh Bhadauria Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Malladi Venkata Bhaskaramma [died] Vs Madhira Manikyamba

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Vs Dy. Commissioner of Labour

Mir Mujahid Ali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mereddy Damodar Reddy Vs PAtel Prabhakar Reddy

B.Madurai Kumar, Vs The Chief Engineer (Sc)