This single judge dismissed two civil revision petitions and related interim applications as infructuous. The court held that once costs were received by the petitioner's counsel, the party was barred from questioning the transactional order, even if receipt was by mistake.
The civil revision petitions were dismissed; miscellaneous applications disposed as infructuous.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
C.R.P.Nos.3710 & 3714 of 2013
Date : 7-8-2014
C.R.P.No.3710 of 2013 Between : K. Swapna .. Petitioner And T.K. Sanjay .. Respondent
Counsel for petitioner : P. Gopala Krishna Counsel for respondent : Sri K. Mohan
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
C.R.P.No.3710 of 2013 is filed against order dated 266-2013 in I.A.No.1730 of 2012 in I.A.No.3057 of 2011 in O.S.No.760 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. C.R.P.No.3714 of 2013 is filed against order dated 26-6-2013 in I.A.No.1731 of 2012 in I.A.No.3058 of 2011 in O.S.No.760 of 2011 on the file of the said Court.
By the above mentioned orders, the lower Court has allowed the applications filed by the respondent/defendant for amendment of the counter-affidavits in I.A.Nos.3057/2011 and 3058/2011 by deleting the words “as a tenant paying a monthly rent of about Rs.4,500/-” in para-5 thereof, by imposing costs of Rs.300/- in each application. At the hearing, Sri K. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent, has stated that the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff in the lower Court has received the said costs. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has however stated that the costs were received under a mistake by his counter-part.
In my opinion, once the costs are received by its
counsel, a party is barred from questioning the order (See: Smt. D. Manemma Vs. V. Anantha Reddy (died) per L.Rs. V. Sudershan Reddy and others[1] ) . Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions cannot be entertained and the same are accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions, CRPMP Nos.4955 of 2013 and 2979 of 2014 in C.R.P.No.3710 of 2013 and CRPMP Nos.4959 of 2013 and 2957 of 2014 in C.R.P.No.3714 of 2013 are disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 7-8-2014
AM
[1] 2013(2) ALT 332
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a party barred under Smt. D. Manemma Vs. V. Anantha Reddy principle can question an order after costs are received by counsel under a mistake.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. D. Manemma Vs. V. Anantha Reddy (died)Referred¶10
Smt. D. Manemma Vs. V. Anantha Reddy (died) per L.Rs. V. Sudershan Reddy and others 2013(2) ALT 332
K. Swapna
T.K. Sanjay
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
