Allowed

Koley Mangamma, v. Yelisetty Krishna Murthy

Telangana HC24 Jun 2016CRP/2763/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order that rejected an application for certified copies by returning it with an improper endorsement under Rule 189. The court found the rejection illegal and disposed of the revision to direct the supply of legal copies within a week.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given two weeks to represent CFR 6154 dated 24.06.2015; Trial Director directed to supply certified copies within one week thereafter.

Koley Mangamma, Vs Yelisetty Krishna Murthy — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2763 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The revision is directed against the order dated 07.12.2015 in EA.No.534 of 2014.

¶5

2. The revision petitioner through the instant EA prayed for calling for the entire suit record of O.S.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The prayer was rejected.

¶6

3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the order impugned in the revision, prima facie, suffers from contradiction for when an application is filed for supply of certified copies of the decree, Ex.A1, plaint etc. in O.S.No.2 of 2011, the same was returned on 11.09.2015 with the following endorsement: “How the petition is maintainable for obtaining docket orders as per Rule 189 of Civil Rules of Practice. Hence, returned.”

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the return endorsement at the best could have been confined to one of the documents requested by the petitioner but the return of the entire application is illegal, therefore, the instant application is filed.

¶8

4. This Court, prima facie, is satisfied that the trial Court ought not to have returned the application dated 11.09.2015 filed by the petitioner for supply of copies. Now the petition to call for records is disposed of on 07.12.2015 observing that the petitioner can obtain the certified copies in O.S.No.2 of 2011. To meet the ends of justice and to enable the revision petitioner, who claims to be wife of the second defendant/judgment debtor, I am satisfied the revision can be disposed of by this order.

¶9

5. The petitioner is given two (2) weeks time from the date of receipt of a

¶10

copy of this order to represent CFR 6154 dated 24.06.2015 and the learned trial Judge is directed to supply the certified copies as are permissible in law within one week thereafter.

¶11

The civil revision petition is disposed of. As a sequel,

¶12

the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

____________ S. V. BHATT, J

¶14

June 24, 2016 DSK

Koley Mangamma, v. Yelisetty Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koley Mangamma, v. Yelisetty Krishna Murthy

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

Penki Krishna Mohan Vs The Revenue Divisional officer, Kakinada

Coromandel International Limited, Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission

International Paper Appm Limited Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission

N.Raghunatha Reddy Vs N.Gururaja Rao

Sudagani (Dikonda) Yakalakshmi Vs The Child Development Project Officer

Golla Chinna Eranna Vs Smt. a. Girijamma