Allowed

M/s. Tara Transports v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Telangana HC21 Aug 2014CRP/5133/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed civil revision petitions and set aside lower court orders in three suits arising from recoveries against the petitioner. It held that suits returned to the competent court due to jurisdiction defects are deemed instituted afresh. Consequently, the trial court must ignore prior proceedings, dismiss the suits for failure of plaintiffs to adduce evidence under Order IX Rule 8 C

What did the court decide?

Set aside docket orders of lower Court; direct lower Court to dismiss suits under Order IX Rule 8 CPC for failure of plaintiffs to adduce evidence.

M/s. Tara Transports Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 5133, 5134 and 5138 of 2013

¶3

%Dated 21-08-2014 # M/s. Tara Transports 7-4-29, Ferozguda, Secunderabad-500011 .. Petitioner

¶4

VERSUS $ National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad, and another.

¶5

.. Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. P.N.A. Christian

¶6

^Counsel for the respondents: None appeared

¶7

<GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? CITATIONS:

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶9

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5133, 5134 and 5138 of 2013

¶10

DATED: 21.08.2014

¶11

Between: M/s. Tara Transports 7-4-29, Ferozguda, Secunderabad-500011 .. Petitioner and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Manager, Regional Office, Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. P.N.A. Christian Counsel for the respondents: None appeared.

¶13

This Court made the following:

¶14

COMMON ORDER:

¶15

These three civil revision petitions arise out of separate but identical docket orders passed in the suits between the same parties. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together.

¶16

At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents is not present. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶17

The respondents have filed O.S.Nos.2130, 2131 and 2132 of 2006, for recovery of certain money against the petitioner, who is common in all the revision petitions. The suits were initially filed in the Court of

¶18

III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, which were later transferred to the Court of the XII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The petitioners contested the suits by filing written statements and evidence was also recorded. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed interlocutory applications under Order VII Rules 10 and 10A of C.P.C. for return of the plaints for presentation in the proper court. The said applications were necessitated due to an objection raised by the petitioner on the lack of territorial jurisdiction for the Court of the XII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to entertain and adjudicate the dispute. Accordingly, by separate orders dated 24.08.2006, the learned XII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, has allowed the

¶19

petitions filed by the respondents by holding that the said Court cannot decide the suits for want of territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the respondents have presented the plaints in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge called for records from the Court of the XII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and posted the cases for arguments. The petitioner has filed interlocutory applications to set aside the orders posting the suits for arguments and requesting the Court to post the suits for filing written statements. The said applications were dismissed by the lower Court, by its orders dated 14.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have filed C.R.P.Nos.5123, 5124 and 5128 of 2008. This Court, by a common order dated 24.06.2010, allowed the said revision petitions by holding as under:

¶20

“It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that, on a plaint being returned for presentation before the appropriate court, it does not amount to continuation of the earlier proceedings initiated, and the starting point is the date on which the suit is instituted, i.e. the date of representation before the competent court having jurisdiction and, since the suit must be deemed to have been instituted afresh before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R. Court, the petitioner’s request that the matter be posted for written statement of the defendant, and not for arguments, is valid. The Court below has erred in holding that the matter is required to be proceeded with from the stage at which the suit was pending before the former court.“

¶21

(Emphasis is supplied)

¶22

This Court has given the following direction:

¶23

“The order of the Court below, in the aforesaid three Civil Revision Petitions, is accordingly set aside and the I.As. are allowed. The Court below shall permit the

¶24

petitioner herein to file his written statement and proceed to decide the suit, thereafter, in accordance with law.”

¶25

(Emphasis supplied)

¶26

After disposal of the above-mentioned civil revision petitions, the petitioner was allowed to file written statements. The lower Court has framed a purported additional issue instead of framing issues afresh. As the plaintiffs have not adduced evidence, the evidence on their side was closed on 26.02.2011 and the suits were posted for evidence of the defendant for adducing evidence on its side. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner represented before the lower Court that as the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence, the suits have to be dismissed. This request was turned down by the lower Court on the reasoning that in the orders passed in the above-mentioned civil revision petitions, no direction was issued by this Court for eschewing the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the parties and that no order was passed for conducting a de novo trial. The trial Court has further observed that in the absence of any such direction issued by this Court, the evidence which was already on record is deemed to be intact and that the parties need to adduce evidence only on additional issue. Accordingly, the lower Court has directed the defendant to lead evidence on the said issue.

¶27

As rightly submitted by Mr. P.N.A. Christian, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court below has completely misdirected itself in reaching to the conclusion that the proceedings before it are in continuation of the proceedings on the file of the previous court. This Court, in its order dated 24.06.2010 in C.R.P.No.5123 of 2008 and batch, in no uncertain terms held that the suits must be deemed to have been instituted afresh before the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s

¶28

Court, Ranga Reddy District, and that, therefore, the procedure sought to be followed by the said Court by posting the case for arguments instead of permitting the petitioner/defendant to file written statements was erroneous. In its concluding part of the order, this Court has categorically directed the lower Court to permit the petitioner to file its written statements and to proceed to decide the suits thereafter in accordance with law. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the said order of this Court, which clearly held that the suits are deemed to have been instituted afresh which necessarily means that the proceedings taken place before the previous Court have no validity in law as it admittedly lacked territorial jurisdiction. Surprisingly, having allowed the petitioner to file written statements, the lower Court appeared to have allowed itself to land in confusion by not framing fresh issues and instead taking on record the issues already framed and framing only an additional issue. The lower Court has also completely misdirected itself in thinking that the evidence recorded by the Court of the XII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, can be considered as the evidence having been recorded by the present Court and by insisting on the petitioner to adduce fresh evidence only on purported additional issue.

¶29

Rule 8 of Order IX of C.P.C. envisages procedure where defendant only appears. This Rule reads as under:

¶30

“Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder.”

¶31

As rightly pleaded by the petitioner, since the respondents/plaintiffs have failed to adduce any evidence, their pleadings remained unsubstantiated in the absence of any evidence and, therefore, the suits are liable to be dismissed without there being any need for the petitioner to adduce evidence. The observation of the lower Court that in the civil revision petition, there is no direction to eschew the evidence of the witnesses already recorded by the previous court only reveals lack of proper comprehension on its part. As noted hereinbefore, the order of this Court in the previous revision petitions is very clear and the finding that the suits must be deemed to have been instituted afresh with a direction to the lower Court to permit the defendant to file written statements and to proceed to decide the suits itself are clear indications of the mind of this Court that the suits before the lower Court must be treated as fresh suits and not as the suits in continuation of the proceedings before the previous Court.

¶32

For the above-mentioned reasons, the docket orders of the lower Court are set aside. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the suits by ignoring the proceedings of the XII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Civil Court, Secunderabad, and in terms of Rule 8 of Order IX of C.P.C.

¶33

The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed.

¶34

As a sequel to the allowing of the civil revision petitions, interim orders dated 06.02.2014, as extended by further orders, are vacated and C.R.P.M.P.Nos.7112, 7113 and 7116 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶35

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶36

21^st August, 2014 IBL L.R. Copies

M/s. Tara Transports v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Tara Transports v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s. A.P. Carbides Limited (in liquidation)

M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited, Vs M/s. Shri Venkateswara Sponge And Power Pvt. Ltd.

Kothapalli Issac Vs B Ramesh Babu

G.Manoharlal, Vs Syed Mahmood Hussain

M/s Sri Maruthi Industries Vs M/s Sri Gajanand Traders

M/s. Tara Transports Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.