Dismissed

M.Vidaya Rani v. R.Sudarshan (died)

Telangana HC13 Dec 2021CRP/580/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a lower court's order dismissing an application to receive documents due to non-compliance of a cost condition in a long-pending suit. The bench upheld the trial court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs, upholding the trial court's order and directing the High Court to file miscellaneous applications if any.

M.Vidaya Rani Vs R.Sudarshan (died) — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 580 OF²⁰²¹

¶6

Petition under Arlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 20102121 in lA No.147l2020 in OS No.69412012 on the file of the Court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

tM.Vidaya Rani, w/o Late M.Laxman, Aged 50 years, Occp.Household, 2. tvl.Sandeep Kumar, S/o Late Iv!.Laxman, Aged about 3lyears ,Occp. Pvt.Service,

¶9

M.Satish Kumar, S/o Late.M.Laxman, Aged about 28 years, Occ.Service, 4. M.Ashok, S/o Late M.Balaiah, aged about 64^years, Occp. driver,

¶10

M. Suvarna, W/o Late. M.Krishna, aged.70^years above, Occp.Household, all the above said petitioners Are residing No.1 to 5 R/o, H.No.B-2-29-32, Upperbasti, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

R.Sudarshan (died), Lrs P2 to P4)

¶14

Neeraja, D/o Late R.Sudershan, aged about 48years, Occp. Household

¶15

R. Venugopal, S/o R.Sudarshan, aged about 44 years, Occp. Business ,

¶16

L.Padmaja, D/o Late R.Sudarshan Aged about.41 years, Occp.Household, (No.2 to 4 are R/o 3-3-5351114, Kutbiguda, Hyderabad-500027 (Respondents 2 & 4 not necessary parties)

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 15'1 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.694/2012 on the file of 25th Additional Chief Judge Court, City Civil Court Hyderabad by suspending the Order in lA No.147 of 2020 Orders dated 20th day of February 2020 pending disposal of the Main CRP No. of 2021

¶20

For the Petitioners : M/s T.H.SOWBHAGYA LAKSHMI, Advocate

¶21

For the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI K.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, Advocate

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWAR,{ REDDY CRP No.580 of 2021

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The petit oners/defendants have preferred this Civil Revision Petition under A ricle 227 ol the Constitution of [ndia. assailing the order dated20.02.2021 passed in lA No.l47 ol'2020 in OS No.691 ol20l2 on the llle olthe XX V Additional ChielJudge. City Civil Court. 1[1,derabad.

¶27

That appli ation in IA No.l47 of 2020 rvas filed by the petitioncrsi defendants under lrder-Vll. Rule l4 read with Section l'51 ol CPC seeking leave of the Cor rt to receive the documents and in that application. a conditional order was passed on 11.02.2021 by the Court below, giving an opportunity to thr petitioners/defendants lor production of the documents subject to paymer t of costs of Rs. I ,000/- to other side and also R.s. 1,000/costs to the Distrir t Legal Services Authority and production o1'evidence by 20.02.2021.

¶28

As per the locket order dated 20.02.2021, cost uas not paid and thc condition was not :omplied. Docket order dated 20.02.2021 is cxt:'acted as un d er:

¶29

"Costs not pa J. Counsel lbr petitioner subnrits that thc petitioner is poor and thert is costs of only Rs.1,000/- and stated that thc petition may be dismis;ed. Counsel appeared at 1.00 PM and nrade the above submissions. {espondent/plaintitT counsel present fi()nt morning and stated that the are ready tiom moming in the case. As concitiorr is not complied,^,etition was dismissed."

¶30

This order ir under challenge belorc this Court in this rcvisiorr

¶31

Dedtion

¶32

)

¶33

'l'he docunlents proposed to be introduced by the petitioners/ delendants under C)rder-VII^{I Rule-l CPC are the current bills for the years} lgg2- lgg'7 and 1998. death certificate^{of Balaiah,birth certificate ol} dclendant No.4's second^{son-M.Sivanath, Aadhaar Card of defendantNo.2,} ID card of defendant No.4's^{first son-M.Sainath and property tax receipts.} Except some of the^{property tax receipts,all other documents were with the} delendants by the time ol^{filingwritten statement,but they did not either} refer to these documents^{in their pleadings or filedthesamealong with the} written statement.

¶34

I have carelully^perused the^{affidavitfiled in support of the} application. Nowhere.^{the reasonfor non-tilingof thesedocuments along} with the written statement is^{mentioned. StiUthe Court below to givea fair} opportunity and considering^{the cause of substantial justice allowedthe said} application sub.iect to the^{paymentol costs.'fhough the learned counselfor} thc petitioners seeks to submit^{that the orderrvaspassed in the morningand} the Court below has directed^{to pay costsby evening and the petitioners} being poor^persons could^{not pay the costs.This submission of the leamed} counsel fbr the petitioners/defendants^{is factually incorrect.}

¶35

As per the order impugned, it^{was passedon 11.02.2021subject to} payment of costs and production of^evidence by^{20.02.2021. That on} 20.02.2021 though the respondents/plaintiffs^{were ready'the petitioners/} defendants were no1 ready and till^{3 p.m. there was no representationand} cost was also not^{paid. The learnedcounsel lor the petitioners/defendants} submitted that thc^{petitionmay be dismissed. Consequently, sinceit wasa} conditional order. fbr^{non-complianceof the condition, consideringthe}

¶36

¶37

i I I

¶38

representation⁽ I the leamed counsel for the det'endants.^{the petition ivas} dismissed. No^'equest was rnade by the petitioners lbr cxtension^{of timc} for payment of osts. on the other hand. as per the ordcr dated 10.02.202^l. it is the learned :ounsel for petitioners/defendants^'tvho submittec before^the trial Court fbr dismissal ol the petition lbr non-compliance ol^the conditional orde^'. Ilnder these circumstances. I do not llnd an1' 'rregularitl' in the order imp rgned.

¶39

Further, he original suit is liled in the lear 2012 fbr pcrpetual injunction.^-[he :vidence on behall of plaintif f.s \'as cornpleted long back and the suil is b:rng adjourned for delbndants' side evidenc: fiorn time to time. Under sL;h circumstances, thc defendants cannot b: ptrnritted to blow hot and col i to suit their convenience bl changing the firrunis.

¶40

In the res It. the Civil Revision Petition is disrnissccl r;ith costs.'l-he order impugned s sustainable and does not warrant anl intert'crence by this Court. Since it s an old suit relatins to the \car 2011" thc' fctitioners' del'endants shall cooperate u,ith the trial Court lbr disposal ol thc sanrc. rvithin threc mor ths liom the date ol'receipt ol'a cop\ ol'this ordcr. Thc trial Court shall nake everl' endeavour to dispose ol'thc suit. a:; rlirected Miscellaneous a plications. if' any pending in this rer ision petition shall

¶41

stand closed

¶42

¶43

Sd/-I,NAGA LAKSHIVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i G SECTION OFFICER

¶44

lhe^{plV Additio rat Chief Judge, City} Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2 One 9n" CC 9Q to Sri^{to M/s.} K^{'.H.Soubhagfa} MailikariuniFRao.^r_at5trmi, nOuoc'ate novol"i"'tO*iudiiOFUb)-' 4.

¶45

Two CD Copies One Spare Copy

AD]A

HIGH COURT

DATED:1311212021

J4=-. .
V_(tuEsrat
1 B ilt't n t2

¶51

ORDER

¶52

CRP.No.580 of 2021

¶53

DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS.

¶54

9.'W

M.Vidaya Rani v. R.Sudarshan (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vidaya Rani v. R.Sudarshan (died)

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

Vadde Varalaxmi Vs Gandham Veerabhadram

M. Laxmi Vs Sri Mallepula Ramesh Goud

Palle Padma, Hyderabad Dist Vs Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Medchal Dist and 4

Mrs. Ann Catherine Helen Decruz Vs Mr. T.Manipal Reddy

Kunja Bhaskar Vs Korsa Mallaiah

Nalladi Manasa , Danda Manasa Vs Nalladi Vijay Kumar