Allowed

K. Vijaya Kumari v. Twin Cities Investments and Finances Ltd.

Telangana HC22 Sept 2014CRP/5267/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the civil revision petition against an order permitting the rectification of a decree. The correction erroneously listed the wrong defendants as ex parte. The court held that notice is mandatory when altering party details regarding ex parte status unless it is a minor typographical error.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; impugned order set aside; petitioner granted two weeks to file counter; trial court to dispose after hearing both parties.

K. Vijaya Kumari Vs Twin Cities Investments… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5267 OF 2012

¶3

Dated:22-09-2014

¶4

Between: K. Vijaya Kumari

¶5

... PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

Twin Cities Investments & Finances Ltd., rep., by its Managing Director, R. Venkateswarlu, S/o Tirupathaiah, office at 3-5-839/6, 1^st Floor, L.R. Plaza, Hyderguda, Hyderabad and two others

¶8

.. RESPONDENTS

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5267 OF 2012

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The 1^st respondent filed O.S No. 600 of 2005 in the Court of XI Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) , City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner (defendant No.2) and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,26,546/- with interest. A decree was passed on 31-08-2009 for Rs.63,625/- with interest. It was mentioned that defendant Nos.1 and 3 in the suit are set ex parte.

¶13

The 1^st respondent filed I.A No. 25 of 2012 under Section 152 CPC, with a prayer to rectify the error to the effect that instead of stating that defendant Nos.1 and 3 were set ex parte, it may be stated that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte. The trial Court allowed the I.A through order dated 17-08-2012 observing that no counter is necessary and the error is typographical in nature.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶15

There is no controversy that the 2^nd respondent i.e., defendant No.1 remained ex parte. However, there was some dispute as to who among defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent have also been set ex parte. According to the decree, respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte. It means that in case any correction, in this behalf is to be made, the petitioner herein also remained ex parte. The minimum requirement is that the concerned parties must be put on notice. The trial Court can straightaway correct a mistake without issuing notice to the other parties as long as no substantial change takes place in the decree. Where however the particulars as to the parties who were set ex parte are being altered, issuance of notice to the affected parties is essential.

¶16

The C.R.P is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The petitioner is granted two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file counter to the I.A. The trial Court shall dispose of the same after hearing both the parties.

¶17

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶19

___________________________

¶20

22-09-2014 ks

K. Vijaya Kumari v. Twin Cities Investments and Finances Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Vijaya Kumari v. Twin Cities Investments and Finances 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

K. Naga Rani, Vs Smt. K. Sunitha

Smt. Saloni Devi Jaiswal Vs Smt. B. Rukkamma

M Amarnath Vs M Ravinder

Farhathullah Sohail Vs Mrs.Uzma Raheem

Smt.Sayeedunnisa Begum Vs Smt.Sajida Tasneem

Smt. (K) a. Ashalatha Vs Sri. Abisetti Venkat Rao