Allowed

M/s Pravah Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Represented v. Budidi Bhaskar and 15 others

Telangana HC4 Mar 2021CRP/467/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition invoking Article 227 and Section 151 CPC. The court directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to file an Additional Written Statement regarding a partition suit, despite the petitioner seeking the leave belatedly, on payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Allow civil revision petition; permit defendant to file Additional Written Statement; direct payment of costs Rs. 50,000 to Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama.

M/s Pravah Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Represented Vs Budidi… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 467 OF 2020

¶6

Petition Under Arlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order and decree dated 20-09-2019 in LA. No. 29 of 2019 in O.S. No. 131 of 2013 on lhe file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Alair, Nalgonda District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

[t4/s Pravah Laboratories P,.t. Ltd Represented, by its lVlanaging Director Vasudeva Chary S/o. Narsihma Chary Aged about 55 Years R/o. Plot No. 530, Deepti Srinagar Colony Hafeezpet, Srilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad

¶9

...pETrroNER/ Defendant No. 10

¶10

AND

¶11

Budidi Bhaskar , S/o. Late Pedda Yadagir, Aged about 32 Years, R/o, Yadagiripaly Village of Yadadri - Bhongir District ( Nalgonda )

¶12

Budidi Agamma, W/o. Lae Pedda Yadagiri, Aged about 62 Years, Fl/o. Yadagiripaly Village of Yadadri Bhongir District ( Nalgonda )

¶13

Budidi Sreenu, S/o. Late Pedda Yadgiri, Aged about 47 Years, R/o. Yadagiripaly Village of Yadadri - Bhongir District ( Nalgonda )

¶14

Budidi Venkataiah, S/o. Late Pedda Yadgiri, Aged about 77 Years, Rl/o. Yadagiripaly Village of Yadadri - Bhongir District ( Nalgonda )

¶15

Budidi Ramachandraiah, S/o. Late Pedda Yadgiri, Aged about 66 Years, Fl/o. Yadagiripaly Village of Yadadri Bhongir District (Nalgonda )

¶16

Budidi Swamy, S/o.Late Pedda Yadgiri, Aged about 62 Years, FYo. Yadagiripaly Village of Yadadri - Bhongir District (Nalgonda)

¶17

Budidi Sailu, S/o. Late Pedda Yadgiri, Aged about 62 Years, R/o. Yadagiripaly Village of Yadadri Bhongir District ( Nalgonda)

¶18

Budidi Mallaiah, S/o. Late Pedda Narsaiah, Aged about 57 Years, r/o. Yadagiripally Village of Yadagirigutta [t4andal

¶19

Shivagalla laxmi ( Since died her LRS, shown as R 1 1 to R16)

¶20

Bollam Andalu, W/o. Yadagiri, Aged about 60 Yrs, R/o. H No. 1-7-861 Ramnagar, Mohan nagar, lv4oramagadda, Hyderabad

¶21

1 1. Shivagalla Balaraju ( Since Deceased )

¶22

Shivagalla Anjaneyulu, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 47 Years, R/o. Kondamadu Village of Bibinagar lr4andal.

¶23

Shivagalla Ashok, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 37 Years, R/o. Kondamadu Village of Bibinagar Mandal

¶24

Shivagalla Bujender, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 25 Years, R/o. Kondamadu Village of Bibinagar lt4andal

¶25

1 5. Shivagalla Andalu, Dio. Narsaiah W/o. Pentaiah, Aged about 47 Years, Fl/o. Edullabad Village of Ghatkesar lt/andal

¶26

l6.Shivagalla Bhagya, D/o. Narsaiah, Rl/o. Kondamadu Village of Bibinagar lt4andal.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS/ D 2 to 9 / D11 to D16

¶28

lA NO:^{1 OF2021}

¶29

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{fileoin support} "t^{fli" p"lii"iiiirel-trghCourt mav be pleasedto} oermit the^{petitionert" i;;;;il;r1.; the paras 2 (a) to 2(e) in his written} iunior Civil^{Judge' Alair'} statement^{filed in O.S No.'r:S"iiZOii".'tr.rJrii"} "ilne r.i]go"J,^{Dittrict by allowingthe above CRP'}

¶30

lA NO:^{'l OF 2020}

¶31

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthat.inthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filedin supiort'i'fli" plittii i'he HighCourt mavbe pleased to} stav of all^{further proceedinltin o'OL' and decree passed in lA No 29 of 2019} in b.s.trto.tgt^{of 2013 o,ill-io'"ogioigon t'" file of the courtof the Junior} Civil Judge^{at Alair NalgonO-'fiitiiittGtding disposal of the main C'R'P'}

¶32

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI J' KANAKAIAH}

¶33

Counsel^{for the Respondents:NONEAPPEARED}

¶34

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶35

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶37

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.467 of 2020

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 20.09.2019 in I.A.No.29 of 2019 in O.S.No.131 of 2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Alair (for short, 'the trial Court'). By the impugned order, the trial Court had dismissed the petition filed by the defendant No.10 seeking to file Additional Written Statement.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel l'or the petitioner/d efenda nt No.10. None appeared for the plaintiff/respondent.

¶41

The petitioner filed an application, LA.No.29 of 2019 under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking to file Additional Written Statement. The suit O.S.No.131 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff seeking for partition of suit schedule property. The defendant filed Written Statement in January, 2013, claiming that the suit schedule property came to be purchased by the Company through registered Sale Deed Document No.243912005 dated 17.12.2O05; Document No.297I/2006 dated 14.08.2006; document No.292912006 dated 09.08.2006,^and thereafter yet another Document No.2928l2006^{dated 29.05.2006.It} was denied that the property was ancestral^{property and the property} was the acquired^property of the^{l,endorswho are the elders in the} famlly of the plaintiffs and the drlfendants^{and the suit itself is a} collusive suit filed only to extract^{money fromthe defendants.Other} pleas relating to non-joLnder of^parties and^{non-nlentioning of the} entire property was also^{taken apart from changein the nameof the} Company to Yadadri Life^{Sciences Private Limited.}

¶42

The petitioner sought^{leave of the Court by filing an application} invoking Order VIII Rule 9 of^{CPC for filing Additional Written} Statement stating that they^{were not propertyadvisedearlier and} certain pleadings were omitted out of^{ignorance which pleadings are in} fact borne out of record. The application^{was dismissedby the trial} Court stating that the^petitioner had^{approachedat a belated stage,} and ignorance cannot be a^ground as the^{material which the petitioner} seeks to bring on record was existing even^as on^{the date of filing of} original written statement. Hence, this civil revision^{petitionis filedby} the petitioner/defenda nt No,10.

¶43

When this matter came up for admission on 25.02,2020, notice was ordered and the notice was served on the respondents. In spite of the same, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶44

Having perused the nature of the pleadings which the petitioner seeks to bring on record, and more^{particularly,} considering the fact that the petitioner came to have purchased the property through registered sale deeds as far back as in 2005-06, and considering the inadequate legal assistance available at the place where the suit is pending, and considering that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, the present civil revislon petition deserves to be allowed in the interest oFjustice, however, on payment of costs of Rs.50,000/-. As the other responde nt/ pla intiff, nor any of the res pondents/defenda nts chose to appear in spite of service of notice, no prejudice would be caused if the costs of Rs.50,000/- are directed to be paid to the Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama, Sohra,, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, PIN-793108 which is a philanthropic organlzation conducting various social service activities. The costs of Rs.50,000/shall be paid in favour of Secretary, Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama,

¶45

Sohra, State Bank of India, Current Account No.11861825613, IFSC Code: S8IN0009116; MICR Code: 793002502; PAN No: AAAAR1077P.

¶46

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. On furnishing proof of payment of costs before the trial Court, the trial Court shall permit the petitioner/d efenda nt No.10 to file the Additional Written Statement, and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this civil revision^petition, shall stand closed.

¶47

//TRUE COPY'

¶48

SD/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Ci\

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

¶51

The Junior Civil Judge at^{AIair ( Nalgonda} )

¶52

One CC to Sri J. Kanakaiah,^Advocate IOPUC]

¶53

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410312021

ORDER

CRP.No.467 of 2020

ALLOWING THE CRP.

sT4
1 I tlAR 2$21
*
t
b
I

M/s Pravah Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Represented v. Budidi Bhaskar and 15 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Pravah Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Represented v. Budidi Bhaskar and 15 others

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

Dharanikonda Anand Vs M/s. Reliance Industries Limited

Kailash Chand Goel Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Coropration

Nimmagadda Krishna Mohan , Mohan Krishna Vs Chimalmoodi I,axmi Raja

Anumula Yellaiah, Vs Kannam Madhusudhan

Mohd Mujeebuddin, Vs Mohd.Fasi

M/s. L.M.R. Constructions and another Vs Koppula Venu Gopal Reddy