Dismissed

Ramesh Chandra Soni v. Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni

Telangana HC4 Apr 2023CRP/1000/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court by Special Leave dismissed a Civil Revision Petition where the petitioner sought additional issues under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. The Court held that the trial court did not err in not framing further issues and that the petition was filed at a belated stage, dismissing it without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs.

Ramesh Chandra Soni Vs Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1000 OF 2022

¶6

Petition under Article 227 ol the Constitution of lndia, against the Order made in 1.A.No.250 ol 2022 in O.S.No.596 ol 2O1O dated 24.03.2022 on the file of

¶7

the XXV Additional Chief Jude, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ramesh Chandra Soni, S/o late Shri Satyanarayan Soni, aged 70 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o H.No.15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad,

¶10

...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . Late shri Satyanarayan Soni, dead as per sole Lr Ramesh Chandra Soni

¶13

Purshottamdas Soni, dead as per Resp No 04 to 09

¶14

Dist. Registrar, Red Hill, Nampally

¶15

Mukunddas Soni, S/o late Purshottamdas Soni aged about 55 years, Occ. Business Rl/o. H. No. H No.16-2-147lK1,flal No.501 , AP Mansion, New Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶16

Smt Kamala Soni, w/o late Ghanshyamdas Soni aged about 55 years, Occ. House wife H No.16-2-147|KJ1, flat No.501 , AP Mansion, New ltlalakpet, Hyderabad.

¶17

Smt Priyamka Mundada, D/o late Ghanshyamdas Soni aged about 30 years, Occ. House wife Ri/o. Plot No.305, flat No.201, Vakratund Apartments, Chikali layout Near east RTO office, Nagpur - 440 035.

¶18

Miss Payal Soni, D/o late Ghanshyamdas Soni aged about 27 years, Occ. Student H No.'1 6-2-1 47 lK 1, fla| No.501, AP Mansion, New Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶19

Smt Nirmala Phafat, D/o late Purshottamdas Soni aged about 56 years, Occ. House wife Ri/o. H. No. 4-5-58713, Hutbiguda, Opp lane of Durga Dairy Products, Near Badi Chowdi, Hyderabad.

¶20

Smt Meena Damani, D/o late Purshottamdas Soni aged about 50 years, Occ. House wife R/o. Flat No.05 lndumati Apartments, 2nd floor, Opp Gokhale School, Shimpoli Road, Borivali West, Mumbai 400092

¶21

(That the Respondent Nos.3,6,8&9 are not necessary party to the present revision)

¶22

...RES'.NDENTS

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to

¶25

ii,

¶26

I I

¶27

suspend the in pur;n rd orders dated 24th March, 2022 pz ss':c in lA No. 250 of 2O22 in OS No. 596 rf 2010 by the learned XXV Additional Clrir;f Judge, CCC, At Hyderabad

¶28

Counsel for the, Petil roners : SRt. AADESH VARMA

¶29

Counsel for the, Rers; ,ondent Nos.4,5&7 : SRI BETHI VENKATEI;W,ARLU The Court made the 'ollowing: ORDER

¶30

( t- I I

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶32

CrVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1OOO OF 2022

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Being aggrieved by the orders in I.A.No.250 of 2022 in O.S.No.596 of 2010 on the file of XXV Additional Chief Juclge, Cit5, 61.ui1 Court. Hyderabad dated 24.O3.2022 r'r'hcreunder thc request of the petitioner/ plaintiff for lraniing additional issues was partly allou/ed, the putitioner/ pla.ictiff has tllc^d this Civil Revision Petition ,,rnder Article 227 <tf Constitution of India.

¶35

As could be seen from the record, the petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.596 of 2010. He has filed a petition vide 1.A.No.250 of 2022 under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C with a prayer to frame aclditional issues as shown in the affidavit liled in support of the petition. In the said affidavit thc: petitioner has clairned that he has frled the main suit for deciaration of title, cancellation of grft settlement deed executed bl, deli-'ndallt No.I in l-avour of defendant No.2 and for possession of the suit schedtrle propert5,, for specific pertbrrnarlce and possession in respect <.rf suit

¶36

t 5

¶37

¶38

CRt' t,o.1r)OO of²⁰²²

¶39

¶40

schedulc^" l' and^"C" llroperties.^{The trial (lor-rrt framed (B)} issue r; o-r ',2.O2.2O^{1 1 . Hor*.'ever,the petilioner} i;llaintill^1-ras statecl ti-rz t subsequent^{to framing of issue:;' -he lega1} reprerler.t:^--ives of^{respondent No.2 were brouglrt on recold} as respon:lent Nos.4^{to 9.The petition:r'7 plaintiff filed} draft issru :s before^{the trial Court, but the '.r'al Court by} oversight mtssed^{certain important iss-rc'; arising for} <;onsidct-ar ion in^{r.ieu'of material proposrticnal.isil-rgon the} pleadinlls :l the parties.^{The petitioner fr.trtll(:r submittcd} before the trial Court^{that some of the issre';} "'veI'e^framed b], tL,e tri :r1 Court^{required to be redrafte'dfor rtarrowing} dou,r: tLLe 3ontroversy'^{and for proper und(rrs:a'ndlng of the} issue in c :c1er to^{meet the requirementof brrr Cetr of proof} under tht lavv^{of evidence and there is n<:cesr;ityto frame} som€ lrlo e additional^{issues,thereby sorrglrtfo r framing} addil,iorra issues^{and recastingthe issuesl I the a-ffidavit'} the pe -it oner further^{claimedthat wh ilelramingthe} issut:s. tL^r: Court^{must indicate as to otr vrhont the burden} of provin,l particular^{issues is laid so that ihe party on} whorn 1-h r burden lies,^{will adduce rebut:al e'r'idence'The} said perti ion was opposed^{by the respondt:r: t'The trial}

CRP No.LOOO of 2O22

T i I i

I I

Court having heard both parties and after considering the material averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, allowed the petition to some extent by framing (4) more issues, but dismissed the request or framing the other issues as indicated by the petitioner in the affidavit.

¶47

The petitioner/plaintiff being not happy with the above said order filed this revision and submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to facts of the case on hand. It is against the principles of^justice, equity and good concise. The Court below came to erroneous conclusion that the issues framed in suit would suffice and covered the entire controversy between the parties, but the Court did not consider the law in respect of framing of issues on material propositions for avoiding miscarriage of justice. The trial Court failed to consider the reasons advanced by the petitioner for framing additional issues in the suit for consideration in vier,r' of rival contentions ald came to erroneous conclusion by delivering non-speaking order without application of mind

¶48

¶49

CaI' No.|OOO of 2O22

¶50

The petitioner has further subm^jtt,rd that the trial Court la .ed to folio\' the procedural lar,.s, I ules and pnn<;iplcs^,tf natural justice and arbitrar ih. came to a concLusio r tltat r-he issues already ft-ar eerl co,/ered the entire c( ntroversy in the pending 1ir-igrrt:on without discr-rssin,l the controversy which is mlrntfe,st from the impt,gncc order. The trial Court failrrd to look into the controv,ir,l' before decrding impugned application and dismissec r,he application on Lhe solr lrcu.-id that the applical.io.r is filed at beiated stage and tLLe re asoning and finding re ::orded thereby is manifestly ()rrcn3ous He has also :lairr ,:d that the trial Court adopted zr s:rirng;e logic in passlng ir'rpugned order, thereby sougltt for setting aside the crdr:r and for framing additional issu,:s as ntentioned by the p,el itioner in the affidavit.

¶51

Lear ned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in vir:w o Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. the Oorrrr- can frame additronal issues or recast the issues at any tirrte. But, the issues so lramed must cover the contlor et.sy of both parties as per their pleadings before th e Cou rt. But. the issues zrlr:adv framed and additional^'ssue; which u,ere

CRP No. LOOO oJ 2O22

I I I

framed by virtue of the order in the impugned order did not cover the entire controversv. The tria-l Court failed to indicate as to on^,"l,hom the burden of that particular issue is lying. Therefore, he sought for framing additiona-l issues.

¶56

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants has submitted that the petitioner/ plaintiff has filed the above petition only to dodge the proceedings and the trial Court rightly lramed the appropriate issues which covered the entire controversy betu,een the parties. There is no necessity to frame alv additional issues, thereby sought for dismissal of the petrtron

¶57

7. Heard both parties

¶58

8. Now the point for consideration is :

¶59

Whether tle order impugned in th.e present reuision is liable to be set aside and whether there is ang necessity to frame addition issues., as praged for ?

¶60

CRP 'to. 1O0O oJ 2O22

¶61

-I

¶62

c). pCrII'T:

¶63

The pr:litiotr lilcd^b1' the^{petition'-rrbr fr.r-e the trial} Courr- u as rtndcr Orcler^{14 Rule 5 C P C. rt' ri:h reads as}

¶64

foLlorvs

¶65

''Ttrt: C,>u:t nrav i1t an,' tlme^{bcflore p: sstng ,;de:ree} ar^(-i rl ihc issrtcs ot [r:rmc additional^{ssllcs(rll such} terur^I rrs it tl.trnks fiL. and all suclr^{a m( ndn]'lDtri or} ad,lit orral rssttr:s rts mav^{ltc necessary1or dcLer-miring} tht: r ralters in conlrovcrsY between^the Pattic.i^rhaIbc so tn rd,r or fra mcd^"

¶66

Be fc^-e going to the^{merits of the} ':as;e ,^{ir is just and} necessan/ [o make mention that^{tlletl iz 1 Corutis} cmpc,<sup>-e r€ :l lo frame^{additionalissues draftany} unnecefisi Lry issltes^{and even reframe/rec;rsl lhe issuesat} arry tirrre before^{pronouncingthe judgmen - in the surt'} Therr:fore the^{petitioner has got righ t to (r ue stion the} issue s zrt rny time.^{Hou'ever,by virtue of Q1 dr:r t4 Rule5} CPC, the ssues^{have to be framed bast'd on the pleadings} of both^p rlrties ttfter^{hearingthe partres to the suit' by} ascertaitli tg upoll^{what material propositiorrof lact or of} lari' t he pi rl ies are at^tariance.

¶67

CRP No, LOOO of 2022

¶68

¶69

1 1 . The trial Court found that the questions sought to be determined in proposed issues vide A,C,D,i,N were already covered in issues framed on 22.11.2011 and also found that the issues z.rlready framed are self implicating as to on whom the burden lies. A perusal of the issues already framed and additional issues framed under the impugned order indicates there is no necessity to frame arry other issues. The trial Court having discussed the entire controversy came to a correct conclusion and having considered the real controversy framed additional issues, thereby there is no necessity to frame any additional issues as required by the plaintiff.

¶70

The suit was filed in the year 2010 and as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner itself il shows that the trial Court framed issues in November, 2071 . Whereas the petition filed by the petitioner with a request to frame additional issues was on 25.01.2022 i.e., about more than 10 years after framing issues b5r the trial Court. As per the information furnished by the learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant, the petition was field at a belated

¶71

¶72

CRP .'to.1)OO oJ 2022

¶73

stage.^'l1e :'efore, Lhere are no merits^{in Lht: rer'isirln and it} is liable to bc dismisse d

¶74

In tl .e result, the Civil Revision^{Petitionir; d-smissed} The suit v as filed in the^year 2010,^{thereby th,:: tnal Court}

¶75

sha1l try tr clispose the suit^{as expeditioll5lrr25 36''5 fo1s}

¶76

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous r\ rl,iications, if an,y, sh:Jl :rtand closed.

¶77

Sd/. P. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTI\NI' REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

(:)'----'-

I;ECTION OFFICER

To,

The XXV Adriiti^{rnal Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabarl}

¶83

One CC to^{Sri , ,adeshVarma, Advocate (OPUC)} - g. On" CC to Sri I lethi Venkateswarlu,Advocate^(OPUC)

¶84

Two CD^t)oPier ks PR

4{g

HIGH COURT

SSRN,J

DATED:041041i023

ORDER

\s
.<br>.rS
.,=ll'
f.
";>

¶91

CRP.No.1000^{of 2022}

¶92

DISMISSING^{HE C.R.P} WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶93

Ramesh Chandra Soni v. Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Soni v. Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni

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

Bandari Tulja Bai, (Died) and 5 others Vs Shree Ballabh Vyas and another

Smt. Gannamaneni Chandrika Vs Sagar Rao Gannamanneni

Smt.Kamsani , Morsu Santhosh Kumari Vs Kamsani Prashanth Reddy

Max Hypermarket (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Renu Kumari Agarwal

Rapelli Satyanarayana Vs Dontha Devadas

D. Shravani Vs D. Praveen Kumar