This court dismissed a civil revision petition against the First Appellate Court's order allowing a delayed filing of cross-objections under CPC Order 41 Rule 22, finding no illegality as the substantial land dispute required the opportunity to be heard.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without any order as to 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 SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO**
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2934 of 2012
% 14-02-2012
# Gola Savaramma & Ors. .. Petitioner
V/s.
$ Gola Thimmanna (died) Represented by LR Respondent No.2 & Ors. … Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy
^ Counsel for the respondents: Mr. K. Mahipathi Rao
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? CITATIONS :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2934 OF 2012.
| Between: |
|---|
| Gola Savaramma & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. |
| Gola Thimmanna (died) |
| Represented by LR. Respondent No.2 & Ors. … Respondents |
| Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy |
| Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K. Mahipathi Rao |
| The Court made the following : [Order follows} |
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2934 OF 2012
O R D E R :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 29-02-2012 passed in I.A.No. 407 of 2011 in AS.No. 74 of 2009 by the III-Additional District Judge, (FTC), Gadwal, Mahbubnagar district.
2. The Revision Petitioners are the plaintiffs. They instituted the suit, O.S.No.62 of 2006 for declaration of title and possession in respect of the land of an extent of Ac:39-05 cents in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. After full trial, the said suit was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed AS.No. 74 of 2009 which is now pending disposal before the III-Additional District Judge (FTC), Gadwal. When the arguments in the appeal were commenced before the learned Additional District Judge, the respondents-defendants filed I.A.No. 407 of 2011 under Order41, Rule 22 of CPC seeking to condone the delay of 717 days in filing the cross-objections against the finding on Issue No. (1) in the judgment and decree in OS.No.62 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. The said application was objected to on the ground that no sufficient cause has been assigned to condone the inordinate delay and that the petition
was belated. The learned Additional District Judge however allowed the petition by his order dated 29-11-2012. Challenging the said order, the plaintiffs filed the present Civil Revision
Petition.
3. The grounds urged by the respondents before the
learned Additional District Judge, while making submissions in the petition filed under Order-41, Rule 22 of CPC were that while their counsel was preparing a brief to submit arguments in the
appeal, a senior counsel advised to file cross-objections and on the advise of the said senior counsel they proposed to file cross-objections and filed a petition under Order-41, Rule 22 of
CPC to condone the delay of 717 days.
4. Order-41, Rule 22 CPC provides for filing cross-
objections within one month from the date of service of notice on the respondents in the appeal suit or their counsel on the date fixed for hearing the appeal. The said provision enables the appellate court to extend time for filing the cross-objections. Admittedly, the trial court decided the Issue No. (1) in favour of the plaintiffs and Additional Issue No.(2) in favour of Defendant
No.1 and ultimately dismissed the suit. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and there is a finding recorded by the trial court on Issue No.(1). For that reason, they were advised by a senior counsel to file cross-objections challenging the finding recorded by the trial court, which went against them. The learned Appellate Court allowed the petition on the ground that a vast extent of Ac:39-05 cents of land was the subject matter of dispute and that the respondents have to be afforded an opportunity to put forth their grievance against the finding recorded by the trial court against them. As rightly held by the learned appellate court, the pre-dominant consideration for the appellate court is to effectively adjudicate upon the substantial rights of the parties and the parties as far as practicable have to be afforded opportunity to put forth their objections to the decree passed by the trial court. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the first appellate court to interfere in the present Revision Petition. The order passed by the appellate court is, therefore, confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
___________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO.
14/02/2013
I s L
NB: L.R. COPY TO BE MARKED.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2 9 3 4 OF 2012
Circulation No. 1 2 9 Date:14/02/2013 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay in filing cross-objections was justified given the substantial land dispute.
Whether there was any illegality or irregularity in the first appellate court allowing the petition under Order 41 Rule 22.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gola Savaramma & Ors.
Gola Thimmanna (died) Represented by LR
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
