Allowed

Amaraneni Subba Rao v. Raghavcendra Traders

Telangana HC27 Jul 2018CRP/3490/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a civil revision seeking the setting aside of an order dismissing a petition to receive documents showing the defendant's adjudication as an insolvent. The court held the impugned order was unlawful as material facts were pleaded and public documents were vital to the lis.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; I.A. No. 890 of 2018 is allowed and documents are received on file subject to proof, admissibility and relevancy.

Amaraneni Subba Rao Vs Raghavcendra Traders — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3490 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner/defendant assailing the order, dated 27.04.2018, of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, passed in I.A.No.890 of 2018 in O.S.No.295 of 2015.

¶4

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’). I have perused the material record. Though notice was sent to the respondent/plaintiff, it was returned unserved with the endorsement “left the village”. Therefore, there is deemed service. The respondent/plaintiff has not entered appearance.

¶5

3 . The facts noticeable from the pleadings and submissions are as follows: ‘The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendant for recovery of money on the allegation that the defendant purchased fertilizers and pesticides from the shop of the plaintiff on credit basis and became indebted and that the amount due and payable to the plaintiff is not paid by the defendant. In the said suit, the defendant filed a written statement. Later, during the course of trial, the defendant filed the aforestated interlocutory application seeking permission to file documents, namely certified copy of petition and schedules in I.P.No.5 of 2002, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, and certified copy of the decretal order, dated 07.01.2003, in the said Insolvency Petition. The said petition was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a counter. On merits and by the order impugned in this revision petition, the trial Court dismissed the said petition inter alia holding that though the

¶6

2 MSRM, J

¶7

C.R.P.No.3490 of 2018

¶8

defendant pleaded in the written statement, filed on 28.07.2016, that he was declared as an insolvent by the Senior Civil Court, Addanki, and the present suit which is filed without obtaining permission from either the Official Receiver or the Court which adjudicated the defendant as insolvent is not maintainable, he did not mention the number of the IP and the date of its order. In the said order, the trial Court also held that the subject petition of the defendant is intended to drag on the proceedings in the suit. Aggrieved thereof, the defendant preferred this revision petition.’

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant pleaded in the defence filed in the suit that he is an adjudicated insolvent and to prove the said fact, he filed the afore-stated two documents and that the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition and received the documents in the light of the fact that the documents are public documents and that the filing of the Insolvency Petition and the adjudication thereof cannot be disputed, being borne out by the indisputable record and that the evidence that the defendant intends to lead based on the said documents is vital and would be of considerable assistance to the trial Court in adjudicating the lis.

¶10

5. I have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions.

¶11

6. The defendant admittedly pleaded in the written statement that he is an adjudicated insolvent and on that ground contended that the suit filed without obtaining necessary permission/s is not maintainable. The law is well settled that material facts are only required to be pleaded but evidence need not be pleaded. The aspect of adjudication of the defendant as an insolvent and its impact on the issues involved in the

¶12

3 MSRM, J

¶13

C.R.P.No.3490 of 2018

¶14

subject suit and also the result of the suit has to be decided by the trial Court and for that purpose, the defendant shall be given an opportunity to file the documents and adduce necessary oral evidence, more particularly as the documents are public documents, the genuineness of which cannot be disputed. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the request of the petitioner/defendant deserves consideration and that the impugned order brooks interference.

¶15

7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. As a sequel, I.A.No.890 of 2018 in O.S.No.295 of 2015, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, is allowed and accordingly, the documents annexed to the said petition are received on file, subject to proof, admissibility and relevancy. It is needless to state that it is for the trial Court to decide at the appropriate stage in the suit, the aspect of adjudication of the defendant as an insolvent and its impact on the issues involved in the subject suit and also the result of the suit.

¶16

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.

¶18

______________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶19

Date: 27^th July, 2018 KL

¶20

4 MSRM, J

¶21

C.R.P.No.3490 of 2018

¶22

140

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶24

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3490 of 2018

¶25

Date: 27^th July, 2018

¶26

Amaraneni Subba Rao v. Raghavcendra Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amaraneni Subba Rao v. Raghavcendra Traders

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

V. Sai Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Venkatanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thota Pitchaiah, W.G.Dist., and Anr. Vs the State of a.P.,Land Acquisition, Guntur Dist., and 13 Otrs.

Thatha (Nallamalli as Per Cause Title) Vs Thatha Koteswara Rao

S. Chandra Sekhar , Dobhi Chandra Sekhar Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Ahad Educational and Charitable Society, Vs Smt.Ranjeev R.Acharya