Allowed

Kamma Nageswara Rao and Another v. Union of India and Another

Telangana HC1 Jun 2021CRP/5745/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the Railway Claims Tribunal's dismissal of an open application due to non-attendance. The Tribunal's order was set aside for non-disposal over eight years and leniency was directed regarding delay and interest.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 06.07.2018 set aside; O.A. No. II (U) No. 239 of 2010 restored to file for disposal on merits within six months.

Kamma Nageswara Rao and Another Vs Union of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION^{NO: 5} 745^{0F 2018}

¶8

Petition under section 115 C.P.C^{aggrievedby the order dated. 06.07.2018} passed in M.A. No. 46 of 2018 and Restoration^{PetitionNo. 18 of 2018in case No.} oA ll (u) No. 239 of^{2010 on the file of the court of the Railwaysclaim Tribunal.} Secunderabad Bench,^{at Secunderabad.}

¶9

Betwee n:

¶10

1 Kamma Naqeswara^{Rao, Aqed 60 Years' Occ' AgricultureR/oN'4 V Palem} 'rifi;ilrir'#f,;;.] vr.i,iil' xnZmmam' Khammam District'^relansana'

¶11

2 Smt. Unnam^{Lakshmi, W/o NarayanaRao' Aged 50 Years'Occ Housewife'} Hi;. A"s. R;;-l'Lgii,^{Br+eztectlPost, Hvderabad'}

¶12

...Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Union of^{lndia, representedby General Manager'South CentralRailwaY'} Secunderabad

¶15

Central^{RailwaY, Mumbai'}

¶16

2 Union of lndia,^{representedby General Manager'}

¶17

" 'ResPondents

¶18

Counsel^{for the Petitioners:SRI NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'2: SRI T' S' VENKATARAMANA}

¶20

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶21

THIi HON'BLE SItl JUSTICE CHALLA KODAND./r RAM CIVIL LEVISION PI,TITION No. 5745 of 2 018

¶22

OITDER:

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 06.07.2018 passed by rhe Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secur.rderabad, dismissing M.{.No.46 of 201 8 and Restoration petition No.l g of 201 g in O.A.No.ll(tJ).No.239 of 20 I 0.

¶24

A per.usal ol the order under revision discloses that on the cla_r', on rvhich, the lnatter u,as posted fur hearing, neither the appellants nor their counsel was present. Though it was sought to be explained by the learned counsel for the appellants that the parties could not be contacted on that particular day, as, they were out of Station, as such, there was no representation on that particular day, the Tribunal rejected such contention, as, once Vakalat is filed on behalf of a party, it is the counsel,s duty to represent befbre the Court/Tribunal on behalf of such party. I lou,o,er, cor.rsidering the fhct that O.A is pending sincc 2010 and the dela-v being trivial, the Tribunal could have taken a lenient view and condonecj such delay.

¶25

Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Standing Counsel fbr Railways, would submit that the Tribunal had taken into

¶26

¶27

c.R.p.N. s?os;)[]ii

¶28

consideration the conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioners of not arguing the matter at least from 2017 onwards, in spite of adjournments having been granted and that the delay is caused only on account of the petitioners, as such, in the event of the application being alowed, the respondents cannot be murcted with interest. He would also submit that this Court is consistently directing the Tri'r-rnars to take into consideration rhe conduct.r thc panics, while granting inrerest.

¶29

It is to bc noted thar non_disposal of O.A. II (U). No.239 of 2010 is of 201 0 for a period of eight (g) years, is a matter, which is required to be considered by the Tribunal, as, the respective rights of the parties have to be determined basing on the facts, in the interest ofjustice.

¶30

In those circumstances, the order under revision dated 06.07.2018 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.No.46 of 2018 and Restoration Petition No.18 of 2018 in O.A. II (U).No.239 of 2010 is set aside and tl-ris Civil Revision Petition is allowed restoring O.A. II (U).No.239 of 20 10 to its tlle. Further, the Clourr belou, shall dispose of O.A. on r.nerits, by duly corrsiciering the aspcct with respect to grar.rting or not grantirrg ol' interest on the cor.npensation, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioners

¶31

¶32

CKit,^J C.R.P.No^{5?aS oi 20I8}

¶33

¶34

sha,^{be readyon the next date of hearing and no adjournment}

¶35

would^{be grantedwhatsoever'}

¶36

Miscellaneous^{applications, if any pending, shall stand}

¶37

closed.'fh^{ere shall be no order as to costs'}

ASS€PlRisAIX['+'iX

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

'o',1.^{,n" Member(Technical) Railways ClaimTribunal' Secunderabad Bench at}

¶42

, 3?:'33T3?idnutnatapati^{Krishna Ml'tlv' t9l?"te [oPUC]} 3. one^{CC to SriT' s Vtl;;i;;;mana' Roiocate[oPUCl}

¶43

Two^{CD CoPies}

MMK gbt

-...<

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0110612021

e S iAiE
1
q
29 stP2021 ]}
or)
..,:)
lr

¶49

ORDER

¶50

CRP.No.5745 of 2018

¶51

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITI()N

¶52

€
?pU
)l

Kamma Nageswara Rao and Another v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamma Nageswara Rao and Another v. Union of India and Another

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

Mohammed Hussain Vs Mohammed Ibrahim Ali

Sk. Fareed Vs Sri. Panduranga Bhajana Mandir, Kothagudem and another

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Nizamabad. Vs Manju Jadhav and Another

D Susheela, Hyderabad Vs Mr. D T H H Prabhu, Hyderabad

D Susheela, Hyderabad Vs Dasari Taraka Hari Hara Prabhu, Hyderabad

M/S Data Cables Ltd, Jharkhand State Vs M/S Singareni Collieries Com. Ltd, Khammam Dist and 4 Others