Disposed

D.Madhusudanaian v. M.Sunder Rao

Telangana HC2 Jan 2014CRP/4818/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision petition challenging an ex parte dismissal in a civil suit regarding medical reimbursement was disposed of. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the due amount in an interest-bearing fixed deposit in a nationalized bank at Nellore in the minor daughter's name until she attains majority, with joint signatures required for withdrawal.

What did the court decide?

Order to deposit suit amount in fixed deposit in the name of the minor daughter within 30 days or four months, to be kept in a nationalized bank at Nellore till she attains majority.

D.Madhusudanaian Vs M.Sunder Rao — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

C.R.P.No.4818 of 2013

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The petitioner herein, who is working as a Junior Civil Engineer in Railways, is no other than the son-in-law of the respondent. The respondent is the father of the wife of the petitioner. It appears that the wife of the petitioner died and the respondent herein had incurred medical expenditure to the wife of the petitioner for providing treatment and that the petitioner has also executed an agreement-cum-undertaking dated 29.07.2009 that as soon as he receives medical reimbursement, he would pay the amount to the respondent herein. Alleging that the petitioner did not pay the said amount, the respondent herein filed O.S.No.474 of 2010. It appears that the petitioner herein filed a detailed written statement in the suit. The respondent was examined as PW.1 in chief and it was coming for the cross-examination of the respondent. At that time, the petitioner did not attend the Court and consequently he was set ex parte. Then he filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 06.09.2011 passed against him in I.A.No.936 of 2011. The lower Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner herein did not show any reasonable cause for not crossexamining PW.1. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

¶5

During the course of arguments, Smt.P.Vijaya Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent have agreed that the petitioner and respondent would not have any objection, if the entire amount due to the petitioner as soon as received by the respondent towards medical reimbursement, shall be kept in fixed deposit till the minor daughter

¶6

of the petitioner attains majority.

¶7

In the above circumstances, the petitioner shall deposit the suit amount in fixed deposit in the name of his minor daughter within 30 days from the date of receipt of the medical reimbursement from the railways or even if there is any delay in receiving medical reimbursement from the railways, the petitioner shall deposit the amount in fixed deposit in the name of his minor daughter within a period of four months from today and the amount shall be kept in a nationalized bank at Nellore till she attains majority. It is made clear that the petitioner and respondent shall jointly sign on the fixed deposit forms etc., and nobody shall be permitted to withdraw the amount till the minor attains majority.

¶8

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶9

__________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J

¶10

Dt. 2^nd January, 2014

¶11

PNV

D.Madhusudanaian v. M.Sunder Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Madhusudanaian v. M.Sunder Rao

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

Sri Y.M.Hussain, Vs Sri Syam Mohan

G.Manga, D/o H.Madhusudhan Rao Vs Sri Rajesh Tiwari

Sri Ashok Kumar Kharat S/o Satwaji Vs Sri Rajesh Tiwari

Rapuru Krishnaiah, Vs Konda Veera Raghavulu

Thummala Sudhakar Rao, Vs Chevuru Padmaja

Kothuru Simhachalam Vs G.Demudu