Dismissed

Sri. Doppalapudi Syam Sundara Babu v. Smt Prardhana Veerabathula

Telangana HC9 Feb 2018CRP/740/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 because an application to set aside the impugned ex parte order was already pending before the Family Court below. The Court held that it cannot intervene while the subordinate court's proceeding is active.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending in the revision are dismissed.

Sri. Doppalapudi Syam Sundara Babu Vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY C.R.P.No.740 of 2018

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2017 passed in O.P.No.290 of 2016 by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, setting the petitioner ex parte for non appearance on the date fixed by the Court.

¶4

The contention of petitioner is that he is a resident of USA and he could not appear before the Court on the date fixed by the Court as he has already authorized another person to appear on his behalf after obtaining the leave of the Court under Order 33 of Civil Rules of Practice.

¶5

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner filed application in I.A.(SR) No.7471 of 2017 under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC on 29.12.2017 to set aside the ex parte order dated 16.12.2017, but the same was returned on the same day and again it was represented before the Court and is pending for registration. The petitioner, in stead of filing a petition for grant of stay along with the petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, approached this Court for setting aside the order passed by the Court below, which is the subject matter for adjudication in I.A.(SR).No.7471 of 2017. When a petition is pending before the Court below for setting aside the ex parte order, this Court cannot entertain a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶6

MSM, J C.R.P..No.740 of 2018

¶7

¶8

The only ground urged before this Court is that the Court is likely to record the ex parte evidence and pass orders, but the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a petition to grant stay of further proceedings along with the petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. The petitioner, in stead of following the procedure adopted, a shortcut method by approaching this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, during pendency of the petition at pre-registration stage to set aside the ex parte order dated 16.12.2017 before the Court below, this Court cannot pass any order to set aside the same order and if any order is passed by the Court below in the said petition, petitioner can approach this Court.

¶9

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand dismissed.

¶10

¶11

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶12

9^th February, 2018 sj

Sri. Doppalapudi Syam Sundara Babu v. Smt Prardhana Veerabathula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Doppalapudi Syam Sundara Babu v. Smt Prardhana Veerabathula

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

Mothey Sai Narayana Rao and 3 Others Vs Mothey Anja Naga Raja Mohan and 11 Others

Mahesh Kumar Mishra Vs Mrs.Sujatha Murthy

Smt.Gadi Praveena Kumari Vs Gadi Madhava Reddy

Avilala Chengaiah and 3 Others Vs Avilala Chengalrayulu and Another

Smt. K. Sirisha Vs K.Lakshmni Ankineedu

Kuchibhotla Janaki Rama Sarma, Prakasam Dist Vs Kurnamala Mohana Rao, Prakasam Dist and Anr.