In a civil revision under Article 227, the High Court stayed lower court proceedings for two weeks to allow the petitioner to file an application for time extension while denying a further extension request itself.
Stay of proceedings in O.S. No.318 of 2008 for two weeks; liberty to file I.A. No.32 of 2012; no extension of time granted.
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. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5026 OF 2014
ORDER:
The present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking extension of time for complying with the order passed in I.A. No.32 of 2012 in C.M.A. No.32 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein filed Tr.O.P. No.764 of 2008 under Section 24 of C.P.C. seeking transfer of O.S. No.318 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore to the Court of Principal Senior civil Judge, Nellore for trial along with O.S. No.343 of 2008 pending on its file or vice versa. The said application was allowed on 18.06.2009. While things stood thus, O.S. No.343 of 2008 was dismissed for default since the plaintiff could not file the chief-affidavit within time. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No.184 of 2010 seeking restoration, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he filed C.M.A. No.32 of 2010, which was allowed on 04.07.2012 on condition of payment of Rs.500/to other side on or before 10.07.2012 and further directed both the parties to appear before the trial court on 10.07.2012 and cooperate with the trial to dispose of both the suits as early as possible. However, the same could not be complied with within time, as such the petitioner immediately filed I.A. No.32 of 2012 in C.M.A. No.32 of 2012 seeking extension of time. It is said that the I.A. No.32 of 2012 is pending before the District Court but the same was being adjourned from time to time for one or the other reason while the other matter O.S. No.318 of 2008 is being posted for trial.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that great
prejudice will be caused if both the suits are not tried together and that if two weeks time is granted she will take steps to get appropriate orders in accordance with law in I.A. No.32 of 2012 in C.M.A. No.32 of 2010.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the C.R.P. is disposed of by staying the proceedings in O.S. No.318 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore for a period of two weeks from today only. Meanwhile, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in disposal of I.A. No.32 of 2012. It is made clear that no extension of time would be granted.
Accordingly, the C.R.P. is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this C.R.P., shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
Dt:20.01.2015 GM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a two week time extension should be granted to apply for extension of time to comply with a restoration order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
