Allowed

M/s.Ind Bank Housing Ltd. v. Mr.Chileveru Achi Reddy

Telangana HC29 Apr 2013CRP/6185/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the High Court allowed the CRP and set aside the impugned order dismissing applications for suit restoration. The court directed that all miscellaneous applications filed by the petitioner regarding the default dismissal of their suit be allowed, leading to the suit's restoration to file, citing the trial court's hyper-technical rigour.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside; all miscellaneous applications allowed; suit restored to file.

M/s.Ind Bank Housing Ltd. Vs Mr.Chileveru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.6185 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner filed O.S.No.1068 of 1997 in the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of loan amount. The respondents entered appearance and contested the suit. However, the suit was dismissed for default, on 18.12.2001. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A.No.14 of 2002, under Rule 9 of Order IX C.P.C. That application was dismissed, on 24.09.2002, on the ground that notice thereof was not served upon the respondents. The petitioner filed an application (S.R.No.5990 of 2002) with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 24.09.2002, passed in I.A.No.14 of 2002. That was returned with certain objections. By the time, the petitioner represented the same, there was delay of 69 days. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.(SR) No.3 of 2003, with a prayer to condone the delay of 69 days in representation. The trial Court dismissed the application through order, dated 11.8.2003. Hence, this revision.

¶5

Heard Sri A.Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J.Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

¶6

The hyper-technical approach exhibited by the trial Court in dealing with the applications filed for restoration of the suit that was dismissed in the year 2001, has resulted in the controversy remaining unresolved, though nearly one and half decades have elapsed. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 18.12.2001, and immediately an application was filed under Rule 9 of Order IX C.P.C. It is not uncommon that the defendants in the suits that are dismissed

¶7

for default, do not readily extend cooperation and accept notices by stating that the files have been taken away by the defendants. In stead of giving opportunity to the petitioner, to serve notice, or even requiring him to pay batta, the trial Court exhibited impatience and dismissed the application, on the sole ground that the notice was not served upon the respondents. The application filed for setting aside the same, was returned. There was delay of 69 days in representation of the same.

¶8

The condonation of delay in representation of the applications, or for that matter suits, is almost a matter of course. The trial Court continued its hyper-technical approach, even while dealing with the routine application of condonation of delay in representation and dismissed the I.A., without even numbering it. The whole episode is in a very bad taste.

¶9

The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Having regard to the fact that more than a decade has elapsed ever since the miscellaneous applications themselves were being determined, this Court, in exercise of its superintending jurisdiction directs that all the miscellaneous applications filed by the petitioner in relation to the dismissal of the suit for default shall stand allowed, and as a result, the suit shall stand restored to file. The petitioner shall co-operate with the Court for the early, if not, immediate disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition shall stand disposed of.

¶11

Dated:29.04.2013

¶12

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶13

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶15

Civil Revision Petition No.6185 of 2010

¶16

Date:29.04.2013

¶17

M/s.Ind Bank Housing Ltd. v. Mr.Chileveru Achi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Ind Bank Housing Ltd. v. Mr.Chileveru Achi Reddy

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

Viskhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Vs M/s. Fusion foods

M. Bala Subrahmanyam, Vs M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, a Company Incorporated

P. Vijaya Krishna Vs Smt. P. Bhavani

Peerubandi Prahlad Kumar Vs S.E. Prasada Rao

Sri Singi Reddy Bal Reddy S/o Late Narsa Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Wahed All Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation