Allowed

G.Shareefunnisa Begum v. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC19 Sept 2014CMA/381/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the High Court set aside an order dismissing an application for restoration of a suit. The appeal arose from the dismissal of a suit for compensation filed by a mother whose son died in a school collapse. Finding merit in equity and compassion, the court restored the suit and directed disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.507 of 2002 is allowed; O.S.No.91 of 2000 is restored to file; suit to be disposed within three months.

G.Shareefunnisa Begum Vs The Kurnool Municipal… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

+CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.381 of 2005

¶3

%Dated 19-09-2014

¶4

# G. Shareefunnisa Begum .. Appellant

¶5

VERSUS $ The Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Kurnool, Kurnool District, and others.

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

! Counsel for the appellant: Mr. A. Jaya Sankara Reddy ^Counsel for respondents 1 & 2: None appeared

¶8

<GIST:

¶9

>HEAD NOTE: ? CITATIONS:

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.381 of 2005

¶11

Dated: 19.09.2014

¶12

Between: G. Shareefunnisa Begum .. Appellant and The Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Kurnool, Kurnool District, and others.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. A. Jaya Sankara Reddy

¶15

Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: None appeared

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

JUDGMENT:

¶18

This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of order dated 28.11.2002 in I.A.No.507 of 2002 in O.S.No.91 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

¶19

Though notice was served on respondents 1 and 2, no one entered appearance on their behalf.

¶20

I have heard Mr. A. Jaya Sankara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the record.

¶21

The son of the appellant, who was a student of respondent No.2-school, allegedly died in collapse of the school building. Claiming compensation for the death of her son, the appellant filed the above-mentioned suit. By order dated 03.07.2002, the suit was dismissed for default. The appellant has filed I.A.No.507 of 2002 under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. for restoration of the suit. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court by the order under appeal.

¶22

No doubt, the lower Court has given detailed reasons for dismissing the appellant’s application for restoring the suit. While the order cannot be found fault from legal perspective, the lower Court has overlooked the aspect of equity and compassion. With the result of non-restoration of the suit, the unfortunate mother of the ill-fated son is forever denied the opportunity of claiming compensation. The lower Court ought to have been more generous in considering the application filed by a grieving woman, whose loss cannot be compensated by any amount of money. In my opinion, the case on

¶23

hand is an eminently fit case for extending the arm of justice of this Court to give a fair opportunity to the appellant to pursue the suit on merits.

¶24

For the above-mentioned reasons, the order of the lower Court is set aside and I.A.No.507 of 2002 is allowed. O.S.No.91 of 2000 is restored to its file. Since the suit is of the year 2000, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶25

The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶26

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19^th September, 2014 IBL

¶27

L.R. Copies.

G.Shareefunnisa Begum v. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Shareefunnisa Begum v. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

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

V. Ramesh Babu Vs Marella Pulla Reddy

S.Satyanarayana Raju Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Smt. Ravi Rama, Vs Chakali Satyamma

S.R.K.K.R.S.B. Raj Bahadur Vs Chintala Venkat Ram Reddy

Sk. Fathima Bee Vs The General Manager

N. Shiva Raj Madiga, Vs M. Durga Reddy