Allowed

Marri Rani v. Marri Golla Mallaiah and 2 others

Telangana HC14 Mar 2023CRP/222/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana held that a petitioner in a suit regarding immovable property deserves an opportunity to contest the case. The court set aside orders dismissing applications to reopen evidence after the trial court deemed the petitioner's absence as an intentional failure to comply with a conditional order for cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Orders impugned set aside; trial court directed to reopen the suit to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to contest; miscellaneous applications disposed without costs.

Marri Rani Vs Marri Golla Mallaiah and 2 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶7

Petition under Artcile 227 Constiution of lndia against the Order dated 2711112019 in lA No.s 13 & 14 of 2017 in (docket Order dated 1311112019) O.S.No. 18 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the lX Additional District and Sessions'Judge at Siricilla.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Marri Rani, Wife of Yellaiah Aged 45 years, Occupation Agriculture, Rio. H. No. 1'2-40, Vemulawada Village And Mandal, Rajanna Sircili-a Distirct.

¶10

AND

¶11

..PETIT|ONERyRESPONDENT

¶12

Marri Golla Mallaiah, Son of Mallaiah (died)

¶13

lt/arri Laxmi, Wife of Mallaiah aged about 60 years, Occupation househo]d, R/o. Mahalaxmi Veedhi, Vemulawada Villageand Mandai, Ralanna Sircilla district.

¶14

V. Gattaiah, Son of Mallaiah aged 61 years, Occ Retired Employee, Rl/o, H. No. 6-23-323, Goutham Nagar, Nizamabad Town.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER

¶16

Gounsel for the Petitioner:SRl. M RAM MOHAN REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent 2 & 3: SRI T.V. KALYAN SINGH

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

{

¶20

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICESAMBASIVARAO NAIDU}

¶21

AND

¶22

BeingaggrievedbytheordersofthelearnedlXAdditionat District^{and sessions Judge, sircilla, in I.A.No'13of 20t7 and} I.A.No.14of2Ot7inOS'No'1Bof2Ot7'thepetitionerwhois plaintiff in^{the above referred suit fited these two civil Revision} PetitionsunderArticle22ToftheConstitutionoflndia.

¶23

Before^{going into the merits of the petition and the} argumentsadvancedbythecounseloftheparties,itisjustand necessarytohaveaglanceovertherecordtoknowwhatmade thepartiestofilethepresentrevision'oS.No.18of20]-Thasbeen filedbythepetitionerhereinagainstthreerespondents.Therecord shows^{that during the course of time' the petitioner hereinhas} beenexaminedasPW.landshehasmarkedExs.AltoAl2.The respondents/defendantsdidnotchoosetocross.examinethe petitioner,therebytheCourtbelowhavingaltowedseveral adjournments,^{closedthe evidence and passed a Judgment and} Decree in favour of^{the petitioneriplaintiff.Itappearsthat}

¶24

¶25

SSRN,J C.R.P. No.222 of 2022 & C.R.P.No,223 of 2022

¶26

subsequently, the respondents/defendants filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and the same was allowed. The record further shows that subsequent to the restoration of the suit by setting aside the Judgment and Decree, the petitioner/plaintiff failed to attend the court below. In view of the faiiure of petitioner/plaintiff to attend the court, it seems the trial court closed the evidence of plaintiff. Thereby, two interlocutory applications vide I.A,No.13 of 2017 and IA.No.t4 of 2oL7 have been filed by the petitioner under order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 c.P.c. and Section 151 c.p.c. respectivery with a prayer to reopen the evidence of plaintiff and to recall pw.1 for facing the cross-examination. It further shows the learned Additional District Judge having heard both parties, considered the request of the petitioner/plaintiff and allowed the applications vide order dated t7-L7-20L7 by imposing a condition that the petitioner/plaintiff shall attend the court on 23- LL-20L7 for her cross-examination.

¶27

It further shows subsequently the petitioner faired to attend the Court, thereby failed to comply the above conditional order, as such, the court below dismissed the interlocutory applications on 13-11-2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff filed these two Civil Revision petitions and submitted that the main suit was filed for cancellation of a

¶28

SSRN,J C.R.P. No.222 ot 2022 & C.R.P.No.223 of 2022

¶29

¶30

registered gift deed executed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendants in favour of respondent No.3. However, the petitioner/plaintiff was unable to comply the conditional order due to death of her father and when the petitioner attended the court, the Advocates abstained from attending the court, and the matter was not called but subsequently the record was transferred from Karimnagar to Sircilla.

¶31

Heard both parties.

¶32

Now the point for consideration is:

¶33

Whether the order impugned in the present revision is liable to be set aside and whether the petitioner/plaintiff deserves an opportu nity?

¶34

While advancing arguments in the present revision petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit has been filed in respect of immovable property, in fact, the suit was decreed ex parte in view of failure of the respondents/defendants to cross-examine the petitioner/plaintiff. But subsequently, they filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree which was allowed when the petitioner reported no objection. However, in view of the death of her father, the petitioner could not attend the court and failed to face cross-examination, The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner being lady and not weil-versed with the court

¶35

-__-..----:**

¶36

¶37

SSRN,J C.R.P. No.222 ol 2022 & C.R.P.No.223 of 2022

¶38

proceedings, could not realize the suit has been transferred from Karimnagar to sircilla as a new court has been established at Sircilla. But there was no proper communication from the counsel, therefore, there was no intentional failure of the petition in attending the court and as such, she deserves an opportunity. 7. The certified copy of proceeding sheet filed along with revision petition shows that on 23-L1-2017, the Advocates did not attend the court and subsequenily, the suit has been transferred from Karimnagar to sircilla and as could be seen from the proceedings of the Judge, Family court, Karimnagar, the record has been transmitted to IX Additional District Judge, sircilla on 22-7L-2077, subsequently, the matter has been called at sircilla. Therefore, the failure of the petitioner in attending the Court is not intentional but due to the above stated circumstances.

¶39

The suit was earlier tried before the District Court at Karimnagar and later, the same was transferred to Sircilla which is evident from the certified copy of proceeding sheet filed by the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner attended the Court as per the orders due to strike by the Advocates, there was no proper communication. It is a fact that the petitioner is a house wife and as the property involved in the suit is immovable property, she

¶40

¶41

c.n.p. rvo.zzz ois#i & C.R.p.No.223 of 2022

¶42

deserves an opportunity to contest the suit. Therefore, the court below ought to have given eln oPPortunity before closing the evidence of praintiff' Therefore, the orders impugned in the two civir Revisions petitions are riabre to be set aside.

¶43

g' In the resurt, civir Revision petitions are arowed. The triar court is directed to reopen the suit and provide an opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to contest the suit,

¶44

consequen*y, Misceraneous apprications if any, are crosed. No costs.

¶45

,",,-','-."q!%

¶46

SD/-V.KAVTTHA ASSISTANT REGIS/NAN //TRUE COPY/

¶47

To,

¶48

sEcTtoN oFF|CER'/

¶49

The lX Additionar District and sessions Judge at siricilla.

¶50

one cc to sRr. M RAM MOHAN REDDY Advocate topucl 3. one cc to sRr r.v. KALYAN srNGH, Advocate topucl 4. Two CD Copies EDS6/

)

HIGH COURT

D D i1410312023

'i {E STA 14'
;:4 a1
[ 3 I?n ?[?3

¶56

COMMON^JUDGMENT

¶57

I^{CRP. No.222 of 2022 AND 223 OF 2022}

¶58

ALLOWING^{THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS} WITHOUT^GOSTS

¶59

Marri Rani v. Marri Golla Mallaiah and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marri Rani v. Marri Golla Mallaiah and 2 others

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. K. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Smt. I. Sneha Latha and 2 others

Mrs.Pundru Shailaja Vs Pundru Sudhaker

S. Indrakaladhar Shetty Vs S. Vijaya Lakshmamma

Smt. Donikeni Shilpa , Samala Shilpa Vs Donikeni Naresh

Marneni Jaya Rani Vs Krothapally Siva Prasad

Marri Rani Vs Marri Gana Mallaiah