Allowed

Bodduna Sathaiah v. Mateti Satyamma

Telangana HC15 Sept 2022CRP/1618/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging a trial court order striking out an additional issue. The court held the lower court erred in reviewing its own order without new facts and restored the issue while directing suit disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order striking out additional issue No.1 is set aside; earlier order framing the issue is restored; trial court directed to dispose of suit within six months.

Bodduna Sathaiah Vs Mateti Satyamma — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

|³²¹⁸ |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1618 OF 2022

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2022 in OS No.21 of 2016 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge at lvlancherial.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bodduna Sathaiah, S/o.Late Sri Laxmaiah, Age 56 years, Occ. Dish Operator, R/o.Ward No.12, Mazeedwada, Mancherial, Dist. Mancherial.

¶10

,..PETITIONER/OEFENDANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Mateti Satyamma, W/o.Ramulu, Age 64 years, Occ. House Wife, Rl/o.Mancherial, District Mancherial.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased To stay all further proceedings in OS No.21 of 2016 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge at Mancherial.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: --

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

, l

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLI SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESllltrrlrlLrr REDDY Civil Re,ision Petition No.1618 of 202:2

¶22

ORDDR:

¶23

'lhis Civ I Revisior.r Petition is tiled under Artrr:le 227 ol the Constitu ion ol India by the petit ionr'r / rleft:ndant assailing the legality and validity of the^{,r -der} dated 1O.06.2022 in IA No.138 of 2019 in OS No.21 of .:C16 on the file of the Prin :ipal Junior Civil Judge at Manchr::'retl

¶24

Notice erved on the respondent/ p lainl i T ar.d she remained abs nt without any representation

¶25

Heard t Le iearned counsel for the re, isior-i peti:ioner/ defendant. Pr rused the material available on^-ecord. The submissions nade by the learned counsel for .h e revision petitioner har : received due consideration of this C-:ourt

¶26

For the ;ake of convenience, the partit:s alt 1'.ert:inafter referred to e ; plaintiff and defendant as arrz Lv':d in the original suit.

¶27

The def :ndant has filed this revision petitirrL assailing the order dat:d 10.06.2022 in IA No.138 of 2O1t) which was

¶28

Page 2 of 8

¶29

AVR,.' cRP.l6lu,2022

¶30

filed by the respondent/ plaintiff under Order XIV, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') to strike out the following additional issues:

¶31

1. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her obligation covered under the agreements of sale dated 19.O2.1991 and 10.05.1993? and

¶32

2l,. Whether the non-issuance of notice as required under the law is fatal to the case of the plaintifL:

¶33

The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial having heard on both sides allowed the application striking out additional issue No.1 holding that non-issuance of notice is fatal to the suit in which case the Court is of the opinion that the question of non-issuance of notice is a dispute between the parties and it is to be formulated as an lssue.

¶34

Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 70.06.2022,

¶35

the present revision petition is filed alleging that the order impugned is contrary to law, facts and weight of evidence; the trial Court has erred in allowing IA No.13B of 2019

Page 3 of 8

I I

striking out 1^-re issues which were added as p(rr- lhr: order dated 03.01.1 019 in IA No.79l of 2Ol7; the trial^tlourt has failed to appr rciate the passing of such order u,ould €rmount to be in revie,,ing the order of that Court, dated ')11,.0' .2019; and before ler ding evidence, there was no necesrsit'y to strike out the issu:s and prayed to set aside thr: or,ler dated 10.06.2022 ir IA No.13B of 2019 in OS No.21 of i2016

¶40

The ple intiff has filed the original suit ltrr r;pecific performance of agreement of sale dated I !t. ):,1. 1()9 1 in respect of hor se plot admeasuring Ac.O.02 gur11.-s in Survey No.430 ol G Lrmiila Shivar and agreement ol sale dated 10.05.1993 i r respect of house plot admeasurirLg r\c.0.01 guntas in Sur i,e:y No.430 situated at Garmilla Shivar. In the original suit, -he defendant has filed the writter ..;tatement, issues u,ere iettled, thereafter the defendant I as f 1ed an application, r, de IA No.79 1 of 2017 under Orcler l.lV Rule 1 read with Se< lion 15i of CPC lor recasting the isr,iues. The trial Court, e ; per the order dated 030 i.20¹ 9^.ri: s allowed the said IA ar d the following additional issues lr'r're framed:

Page 4 of 8

AVR,J cRP 1618 2022

1. Whether the plaintiff is ready arrd willing to perform her obligation covered under the agreements of sale dated 19.O2.1991 and 10.05.1993?

¶45

2l,. Whether the non-issuance of notice as required under the law is fatal to the case of the piaintifl.:

¶46

Thereafter, the suit was adjourned for tria-1. While things stood thus, instead of proceeding with the triai, the plaintiff has liled another application in I.A.No.138 of 2019 under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 1 5 lof CPC to strike out the above said additional issues which were formulated pursuant to the order dated 03.O1.20 19 in IA No.79 1 of 2Ol7 . The trial Court has partly allowed the said application and struck ofl the additional issue No. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders dated 10.06.2022, l}:e present revision is fi1ed.

¶47

Be it stated that the trial Court has discussed its earlier order dated 03.01.2019 in IA No.791 of 2Ol7 and arrived at a conclusion that as per the pleadings it is evident that bo the parties are accepting the payment of 25,5OO /'

¶48

Page 5 of 8

¶49

A !/R,J crP i618 2022

1 rl l I

: I I i

fl ltllI fl

ti ll

towards total consideration under two agreernents of sales. Hor,r,ever, the defendant has averred that tre has pard back the said amo rnt to the plaintiff and both the aprr: err.ents of saLes $rere c rncel1ed, which is disputed by t er, plaintiff. Accordingly, -he issues already framed ar-e sufficient, the parties are ar^rare of dispute between them, ther,-' is rLo need to frame ad< itional issue No.1, hence, it ll,as s,trtLck off, whereas seco rc[ issue was retained

¶55

Order ) I\z of CPC deal with settlement of r;sues and determinatior of suit on issues of law or ,rn is;ues agreed upon. Rule-S o1'Order XIV deals with the powt:r rf thr: Court to amend ar d strike out issues. It ma', be slate:d that earlier on th ) request of the defendant zLs pr:r thr: order dated 03.01.1 019 in IA No.79 1 of 2017, the trial Court has framed the a< ditional issues. But again as per t rr: orders in IA No.138 of 2019, dated 10.06.2022, th-e additional issue No.1 was strl ck off. The reason assigned try :hr: t.rial Court is that both he parties are accepted as tc, tht: payr:rent of entire sale c rnsideration. However, it is the :ase of the defendant th; t he has repaid the sale consideriit. on to the

Page 6 of 8

AVR,.J cRP l6t8 2022

I I li

plaintili and both the agreements of sale were cancelled, which is disputed by the plaintiff. Thus, the existing issues are sufficient for the purpose to lead evidence on their respective sides and additional issue No.1 is not required, accordingly, it was struck off.

¶60

On a perusal of the averments of the counter filed by the plaintiff in IA No.791 of 2017 and the petition averments in IA No.138 of 2019, there is no change in the circumstances. On the very same allegations earlier the trial Court has formulated two additionai issues at the instance of defendant. However, again at the instance of plaintiff, the additional issue No.1 was struck off, which amounts to review of its own order by the trial Court. It is not the case of the plaintiff that there are subsequent developments after passing the order dated 03.01.2019 in IA No.791 of 2077 and that the plaintiff has paid the remaining sale consideration. Be it stated that, the trial Court has clearly observed that as per the pleadings, the total sale consideration is paid, but the delendant has been _-coritending^{that he has returnedthe money received from}

Parge 7 of 8

AVR,J ('RP r6l8 2022

,1 l

the plaintiff and the agreements of sale \'er:r ca rcelled Therefore, 1n the above fact situation, thc trial Corrrt has erred in all< wing the application in IA No. I 3ti ol 2O 19 striking out t re additional issue No. 1.

¶66

The on r' ground for striking out the adclrtr,tnrLl issue No.1 appearr to be is the change of the Pre sirling Officer, which is not permissible uncler law. Onc:e tht: Court has taken a vie',.1 for framing the additional issues i,Ls ter the orders date I O3.O 1.20 19, without thert: being any development: subsequent thereto, passing of :;uch orders dated 10.06 .2022 is absolutely unwarranted 'lhat too, when the orc:r dated 03.01.20 19 in IA No.79 I ,rf 2017 was not challenge 1 by the aggrieved party before th(r rll)propriate forum, it wor ld amount the trial Court inrlirt:ct[, reriewing its own order without there being any mislake irprpa:-ent on the face of th: record and without there bt:ing :.r'r.y changes in the circun stances, as such the order inrpugrrcd is liable to be set r side by restoring the earlier c rr:ler dated 03.01.20 i 9.

¶67

Page 8 of 8

¶68

AVR,J cRP r61a 2022

¶69

i5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.06.2022 io IA No.i38 of 2019 in OS No.21 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civii Judge, Mancherial, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order dated 03.01.2019 in IA No.79 1 of 2017 in OS No.21 of 20 16 is restored.

¶70

16 . The original suit is filed in the year 20 16, pleadings were completed by June, 20 16 itself and issues were settled long back, therefore, the trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the disposal of the original suit itself and shal1 make every endeavour to dispose of the same within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties shall cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the original suit as directed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs

¶71

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending _^{irllitrrq"lsiqq petrtlon,slrqU qlaad c_lqCgdiT</sup>}

¶72

¶73

SD/.P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .t //TRUE COPY//

¶74

-,,

¶75

SECTION OFFICER

¶76

To, 1. The Princioal Junior Civil Judqe, Mancherial. 2. One CC td Sri^{KondadiAjay Kumar,Advocate} [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies 4. One Spare^CoPY gbr

\Ar--

HIGH COUR-

DATED: 1510)12022

ORDER

::.
6r,tf
!
:) ,
=& o
$" d9_l
,) N
\ .,)-1.-
c
t.r,,t/
.
+

¶82

CRP.No.161t of 2022

¶83

ALLOWING^"HE CRL.P NO COSTS

¶84

ruC 6 6.$

Bodduna Sathaiah v. Mateti Satyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodduna Sathaiah v. Mateti Satyamma

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

Smt.Lagisetti Dhanasri Urmila Vs Sangepu Ravikiran

Dasari Sowjanya Vs Dasari Sampath

Smt.Balne , Ankam Sowmya Vs Balne Rameshbabu

Thandra Kavya, Vs Gudibandla Shyam Kumar

Kolanu , Anugula Deepthi Reddy Vs Anugula Chandra Sekhar Reddy

Masuri Nagaiah Vs Jangari Suja