Single judge order dismissing a civil revision petition because the petitioner failed to re-submit after an initial bicameral issue of limitation, noting no adverse order or assigned reasons existed at the lower court.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; original docket order returned; no 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
Present
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1966 of 2014
Between:
Gurram Jaipal Reddy, S/o. Chukka Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.8-27, Choppadandi Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
.. Petitioner
AND
Gurram Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Choppadandi Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
.. Respondent
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1966 of 2014
ORDER:
The order, dated 18.12.2013, challenged in this civil revision petition reads as under:
“Heard. In view of the judgment rendered by his Lordships reported in 2009(3) A.P.L.J 9 (S.N) how the present suit is within limitation is to be stated.
Hence returned.”
This would show that the petitioner was given opportunity to explain the issue of limitation. It appears that the petitioner has not re-submitted the petition by explaining the objection raised and the applicability or non-applicability of the decision referred to by the Court.
2. Since no adverse order is passed and no reasons are assigned why he could not re-submit and why the objection raised by the learned trial Judge is erroneous, this civil revision petition is not maintainable.
3. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the trial Court. The Office is directed to return the original docket order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN
RAO, J Date: 14th July, 2014 KL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1966 of 2014
Date: 14th July, 2014
KL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition is maintainable given the petitioner failed to re-submit explaining the limitation objection.
Whether the lower court assigned reasons for not permitting a re-submission in a revision petition.
Whether a civil revision petition can be dismissed for failure to address the maintainability objection.
Gurram Jaipal Reddy
Gurram Ravinder Reddy
P. NAVEEN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
