Dismissed

Kanniar Sreenivasa Ayyanagar Venkatesh v. Chaluvadi Venkatasubba Rao

Telangana HC23 Dec 2016CRP/4108/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition was filed challenging an order setting aside an ex parte ruling. The High Court dismissed the petition to avoid remand as the underlying appeal was pending and served no useful purpose, noting lapses in procedure by the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The impugned order remains.

Kanniar Sreenivasa Ayyanagar Venkatesh Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4108 of 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.06.2016 in I.A.No.468 of 2012 in A.S.No.140 of 2012 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore, on the ground that the 2^nd petitioner in the said I.A., by name Chaluvadi Achyutananda Hari, is no more as on the date of passing of the impugned order.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶5

Notices sent to Respondents 1 and 3 were served and the notice sent to Respondent No.2 has been returned as he is no

¶6

more.

¶7

It is the case of Respondents 1 to 3 that they were not aware of the transfer of the case because of which they could not represent in I.A.No.431 of 2012 in A.S.No.140 of 2012 and hence, they were set ex parte on 03.10.2012. I.A.No.468 of 2012 was filed praying for setting aside of the order dated 03.10.2012 passed in I.A.No.431 of 2012 in A.S.No.140 of 2012 and the same came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 22.06.2016. It may be noted that the Court was conscious of the fact that one Chaluvadi Achytananda Hari, who is the 3^rd respondent in I.A.No.431 of 2012 and the 2^nd petitioner in I.A.No.468 of 2012, was no more, however taken note of the fact that an Application has been filed seeking to bring on record the Legal Representatives of Chaluvadi Achytananda Hari.

¶8

¶9

The court below, however, could have scrupulously followed the procedure, first by ordering the L.R. petition, which is admitted to have been filed, and thereafter the present I.A. Inasmuch as, the Appeal is pending and the other respondents have already been contesting the Appeal, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The learned Additional District Judge shall ensure that no

¶11

such lapses be committed in future.

¶12

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending,

¶13

shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.
Date:23.12.2016
Ssv

Kanniar Sreenivasa Ayyanagar Venkatesh v. Chaluvadi Venkatasubba Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanniar Sreenivasa Ayyanagar Venkatesh v. Chaluvadi Venkatasubba 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

Kameswari and Kinnera a/C theatres - Maddilapalem Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gowri Shankar Theatre, a/c. Guntur, Guntur District Rep. Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Rama Krishna Theatre Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Pudi Subramanyam Vs Pan Ramanaiah

Takkella Radhakrishnaiah, Vs Ganipaineni Nagaraju

R. Rajaiah Vs v. Bhanu Prasad