Dismissed

M/s.Premeier Enterprises v. Ponnada Deva Prakash

Telangana HC8 Mar 2013CRP/514/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions filed by a plaintiff challenging orders that allowed the defendant to condone delay of 241 days under the Limitation Act and subsequently set aside an ex parte decree under Order IV Rule 13 CPC. The High Court found the lower court's exercise of discretion to be valid and not perverse.

What did the court decide?

Both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

M/s.Premeier Enterprises Vs Ponnada Deva… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.507 & 514 of 2013

¶3

DATE: 08.03.2013

¶4

Between: M/s. Premeier Enterprises, Rep., by its Managing Partner, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioner And Ponnada Deva Prakash and 5 others.

¶5

…Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.507 & 514 of 2013

¶8

COMMON ORDER:

¶9

Both these revision petitions, which arose out of the proceedings in O.S.No.2325 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam are heard together and decided by this common order.

¶10

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the suit is filed for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. Since the defendants/respondents herein failed to appear, they were set ex parte and accordingly the suit was decreed ex parte on 29.08.2011. In pursuance thereof, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.128 of 2011.

¶11

Thereafter, the defendant No.6/1^st respondent herein came up with two applications namely I.A.No.711 of 2012 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree and I.A.No.337 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 241 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. Despite notice, the plaintiff did not choose to oppose and therefore I.A.No.337 of 2012 filed for condonation of delay was allowed by order dated 14.09.2012 condoning the delay on payment of costs of Rs.500/-.

¶12

Accordingly, the costs were paid and then I.A.No.711 of 2012 filed under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. was taken up for consideration. In that application, the plaintiff filed a counter opposing the petition and stating that the defendant No.6 being a practising advocate was very well aware of the Court proceedings and that the plea taken by him that he was not aware of the legal proceedings and that he was not served with any notice is incorrect.

¶13

However, the Court below did not accept the said contention and accordingly set aside the ex parte decree by order dated 10.12.2012 taking into consideration that the defendant No.6 has already filed his written statement along with the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.

¶14

Aggrieved by the same, these two Revision Petitions are filed by the plaintiff.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the orders under revision suffered from any patent error of fact or law warranting interference by this Court. The discretion exercised by the Court below in allowing the applications is neither perverse nor illegal and the ex parte decree was set aside assigning valid reasons.

¶16

Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶17

__________________

¶18

Date: 08.03.2013 KLP

M/s.Premeier Enterprises v. Ponnada Deva Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Premeier Enterprises v. Ponnada Deva Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Velaga Nallabbai , Nagaraju, Vs Karri Nagarajamma

M/s.Gautam Bhavan Vs Smt.Sakuntala Sahu

Dr.Ramesh Kumar Vs M.Suresh Kumar

Sri Bade Narasingarao, Vs Smt.Koppisetti Anitha

M/s.Premeier Enterprises Vs Ponnada Deva Prakash

Bakka Anjali Kumari Vs D.Venkateswara Rao