Allowed

Gade Chakrapani v. Mamidala Raju

Telangana HC3 Apr 2023CRP/145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition against an order dismissing an application to condone delay in depositing suit costs. The Court held that the delay was not deliberate and permitted the deposit of the correct amount with costs imposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26-09-2022 set aside; IA No.51B of 2021 allowed; Petitioners permitted to deposit suit costs of Rs.1,984/- within three weeks.

Gade Chakrapani Vs Mamidala Raju — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF^APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE^{A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of^{lndia, aggrieved by the Order} and decree dated 26-9-2022^{passed in 1.A.No.518of 2021in CMA No.58of 2016 in} O.S.No.206 of 2013, on the file of Chairman,^{Land ReformsAppellate Tribunal-cum-} l-Additional District Judge, Hanamkonda

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gade Chakrapani, S/o KomuraiahM,^{Aged 56 years Occ- Agriculture R/o opp-} ZOO Park, Hunter Road Hanumkonda

¶9

Gade Mohan, S/o Komuraiah Aged 53^{years Occ- Agriculture R/o Hunter} Road, Shyampet Near Gandhi Statue,^Hanamkonda

¶10

...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS No.^{1 & 2}

¶11

AND

¶12

Mamidala Raju, S/o Komuraiah,^{Aged 45 years Occ- Agriculture R/o H.No.23-} 1 -21 I 1, Hunter Road, Shyampet^Hanamkonda

¶13

...RESPONDENT/PLANTIFF

¶14

Gade Radhamma, S/o Komuraiah Aged^{75 years Occ-HouseholdR/o} H.No.23-4-144,New Shyampet^{Near GandhiStatue,Hanamkonda}

¶15

...RESPON DENT/RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl.^{BANDAR SRIKANTH}

¶17

Counselforthe Respondent^{No. 1: SRl. A. PRABHAKAR RAO}

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Aggrieved by the order, dated 26.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.51B of 2o2t in C.M.A.No.SB of 2oL6 in o.s.No.206 of 2013 by the learned chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, the present civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/ defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. None appeared for the respondent No.1.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo dated 03.02.2023 vide USR No.24t76 and stated that respondent No.2 herein, who is the mother of the petitioners herein died on 03.04.2020.

¶24

The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of dealing with the present case are that the respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff has filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction against the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said suit was numbered as o.s.No.206 0f

¶25

¶26

2013 on the file of^principal Junior civil Judge, warangal. As the petitioners/defendants did not file their written statement, their right was forfeited and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 27.07.20L4. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.299 of 20L4 under order IX Rure 13 cpc seeking to set aside ex parte decree dated 27.0r.2014 passed in o.S.No.206 of 2013 and the said I.A was dismissed vide order dated zl.og.2ots by the learned Principal Junior civit Judge, warangal. Ther.eupon the petitloners have filed c.M.A before the chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, and the said c.M.A was numbered as 58 of 2016 and the said cMA was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2019 by setting aside the orders passed in I.A.No.299 of 2ot4 with a condition that the petitioners/defendants shall deposit the suits costs before the trial court within a period of thirty (30) days. As per the conditional order passed in c.M.A.No.SB of 2016, the petitioners were supposed to deposit the suit costs within thirty(3O) days before the trial court. It is pertinent to note that the suit in o.S.No.206 of zol3 was filed by the respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff after paying a Court fee of Rs.786l_ but the said suit was decreed ex parte with costs quantified at Rs. l,gB4/_. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed a memo vide sR

¶27

¶28

¶29

No.2739/2019 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, duly depositing an amount of Rs.786/- towards the suit costs on 12.06.2019 i.€, beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. Thereafter, another memo was filed by the petitioners herein before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, to restore the suit and the said memo was returned on 04.08.2021 on the ground that the suit costs of Rs.1,984/- was not deposited within the prescribed period as ordered in C.M.A.No.58l20t6. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A under Section 148 of CPC vide S.R.No.3965/2021 dated 25.08.202t before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, praying to enlarge the time granted for depositing the suit costs and to permit them to remit the actual suit costs of Rs.I,984/- and that they have inadvertently deposited the amount of Rs.786l- instead of Rs.1,984/-. The said I.A was also returned at the S.R stage on 28.08.2021 stating that the petition is not maintainable before the said Junior Civil ludge Court. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A under Section 148 read with Section 151 of CPC before the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, vide S.R.No.1344/202L on 06.09.2o2L praying the court to permit them to remit the suit costs of Rs. L,9g4/- by extending the time from 05.06.2019

¶30

.t5 \r

¶31

¶32

¶33

to 12.06.20L9 i.€, with a deray of B days. Initiafly, the said petition was returned by the court,s Section on 09.09. 2ozl, L8.09.202L with some office objections and the same was represented on og.og-202L and 20.og.2o2r. Thereafter, the matter was ordered to be cailed on bench on 27.0g.202L for hearing and numbered as I.A.No.51 B of 2021. The chairman Land Reforms Appeilate Tribunar-cum-I Additionar District Judge, Hanumakonda, has dismissed the said I.A.No.51B of 2o2r on the ground that the petitioners were not dirigent in depositing the suit costs within the time prescribed.

¶34

The rearned counser for the petitioner has stated that the calcuration of the suit costs was done by the counser appearing in the lower court and inadvertenuy, the petitioner thought that the Court fee amount of Rs.786/_ was directed to be deposited and they have deposited the same in the court but not the actual suit costs of Rs. L,gg4/_. The tearned counsel has stated that the deray of B days ought to have been condoned by the appeilate court dury taking into consideration the totarity of the circumstances but the said I.A was deart with in a mechanicar and pedantic manner and therefore, the rearned counser prayed this Hon'ble court to ailow the present civir Revision petition by setting aside the order dated 26.0g.2022 passed in I.A.No.51B

¶35

i' ",/*-- -----<r '. _- ,.,-

\ -

of 2O2L in C.M.A.No.58 of 2076 by the learned Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, and permit the petitioners to deposit the amount of Rs.1,984/-

¶42

Admittedly, as seen from the record, the^petitioners were served with a certified copy of the order dated 07.03.2019 passed in CMA No.5B of 2016 by the learned Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District^Judge, Hanumakonda, on 04.05.2019. Thereafter, they^{have deposited} the amount of Rs.786l- on 07.06.2019 i.e,^with a^{delay of few} days. Though the appellate Court has stated^{that the petitioners} were nqt diligent in depositing the suit^{costs within the time} prescribed, the appellate Court has lost sight of the fact that the petitioners were diligent in depositing the Court fee amount of Rs.7B6l- but not actual suit costs. The explanation^submittedby the learned counsel for the^petitioners that due to^the miscalculation done by the counsel appearing before the^trial Court, actual suit costs of Rs.L,984l- could not be deposited^and that it was not deliberate appears to be^genuine reason. This court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme court in a catena of cases has time and again herd that where the substantial rights of the parties are invorved, the court shourd be very renient while

*--

I t I i i 1 I i

dealing with the procedurar defects and irregutarities, which are curable and they should not be allowed to defeat the substantive rights of the parties or cause injustice. The depositing of the amount of Rs.7g6l- shows the bonafides of the petitioners in depositing the amounts as ordered by the court in c.M.A.No.58/2016, even though the amount deposited is Rs.786l- but not the actuar suit costs of Rs. Lgg4/-. The situation may have been different had the petitioner not deposited any amount.

¶47

7 - Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.S1B of 2O2L in C.M.A.No.5B of 2oL6 in o.S.No.206 of 2013 by the appeilate court, is riabre to be set aside.

¶48

B. Accordingry, this civir Revision petition is ailowed and the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.51g of 2o2r in c.M.A.No.5B of 2016 in o.s.No.206 of 2013 by the rearned chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I, Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, is set aside. consequenUy, I.A.No.518 of 2o2L is a[owed. The petitioners are permitted to deposit the suit costs of Rs. L,gB4/_ before the trial Court within

//-\

a period of three (03) weeks from today. Further, the petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.2,500/_(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred onry) to the District Legar services Authority, warangal, within a period of three (03) weeks from today. on payment of aforesaid costs by the petitioners, the suit in o.s.No.206 of 2013 shail be restored to its originar fire. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2013; the trial court is directed to take appropriate steps for disposar of the main suit as expeditiousry as possibre, preferabry, within a period of six (06) months. It is also made clear that the petitioners herein shalt cooperate for the disposar of the said suit without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶54

Misceilaneous petitions, if dtry, pending in this civir Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

¶55

Sd/- C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT

//TRUE COPYII

To,

OFFICER

The Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-l-Additional District Judge, Hanamkonda

¶61

One CC to SRt. BANDAR SR|KANTH, Advocate tOpUCI

¶62

one cc to sRr. A PRABHAKAR RAo, Advocate topucl

¶63

Two CD Copies

¶64

JI*'

¶65

--:^'^{, -- "}

¶66

, /

¶67

HIGH COURT DATED | 0310412023

¶68

ORDER

¶69

t\E S l'A
...1-4-
,1. L
1 [ ePfl ?li?3
:'i,'.i
'h !;.- ;!l
'ii

CRP.No.145 ot 2023

ALLOWING THE CIVIL

REVISION PETITION

WITH COSTS

(

Gade Chakrapani v. Mamidala Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gade Chakrapani v. Mamidala Raju

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

K. Nagarjuna Rao s/o K. Sriram Murthy, Vs Geetha Vignana Aided High School

Mohd Bin Salam Vs Sandeep Kumar Sultania and 2 Others

B. Lavanya Vs Bogoju Raja Siddartha Shanakaragiri

M. Shivanandam, S/o. Abbaiah, Vs The Chairman / Managing Director, Apsrtc

G. Dasthagir, Sharmic, E 301914 Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Dr. Sandineni Ravinder Vs Osmania University Repby Registrar