Allowed

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

Telangana HC25 Apr 2013CRP/6196/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition concerning a suit for declaration of ownership of shares dismissed for default, this Court condoned the delay in filing applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order IX Rule 9 CPC, holding the petitioner deserved an opportunity despite counsel's lapse, and restored the suit to file.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; I.A. under Section 5 of Limitation Act and suit under Order IX Rule 9 CPC set aside/allowed for restoration; suit restored to file for hearing.

M. Bala Subrahmanyam, Vs M/s. Reliance Industries… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6196 OF 2010

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The petitioner filed O.S.No.4957 of 1997 in the Court of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondents to declare that the petitioner is the owner of 18 shares numbered in the plaint. The suit was dismissed for default on 21-02-2000. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the decree, dated 2102-2000. Since there was delay of 483 days, he filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short ‘the Act’). The trial Court dismissed the application through its order, dated 10-02-2004. Hence, this revision.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The suit filed by the petitioner for declaration in respect of certain shares, was dismissed on 21-2-2000. The reason mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. for condonation of delay in filing the petition is that, the petitioner fell ill at the relevant point of time and his advocate did not pass any information. The respondents did not file any counter. The petitioner cannot be penalized for the failure of his counsel keeping informed about the proceedings. This Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity.

¶7

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. I.A.No.1453 of 2001 is set aside and the delay is condoned. Since the grounds

¶8

that constitute the basis for allowing the I.A. filed under Section 5 of the Act, happens to be the same for setting aside the order dismissing the suit for default, the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. shall also stand allowed and the suit be restored to file. The suit shall be taken up for hearing on day-to-to day basis soon after the Court reopens. If the petitioner fails to commence evidence on the next date of hearing, the trial Court shall be free to dismiss the suit without granting any further adjournment. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

The miscellaneous petition filed in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand disposed of.

¶10

__________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:25-04-2013 nvl/kh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Syed Azeemuddin, Vs Smt. Rehmatunissa Begum

Smt. Polas Shalini , Ch. Santhoshi Bai, Vs Polas Shiva Kumar

Dogga Demudu, Vs Sukhivhava Chit Fund Private Limited

V.Laxman, Vs Smt.B.Chandrakala

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

P. Vijaya Krishna Vs Smt. P. Bhavani