Dismissed

Munnur Vittal v. Soor Reddy

Telangana HC4 Sept 2023CRP/2563/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by petitioners aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit for default due to delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC. The trial Court rejected the condonation of delay and the revision court upheld the order.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed without costs, and miscellaneous petitions pending in the matter were also stood dismissed.

Munnur Vittal Vs Soor Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH^{DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENISUDHEERKUMAR}

¶6

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITION NO: 2563 OF 2023}

¶7

. Petition Under, . '^{115 of the CPC aggrieved by theJud-gment dated.} 3ll3t2oiCFisseO^{in LA.No 457of 2014in O.S.tto.157 ot 2007ontheflleofthe} Court of the Junior^{Civil Judge al Zaheerabad}

¶8

Between:

¶9

l.MunnurVittal,s/oManikreddy,agedaboutT5years,agriculturlst'r/o Ramojipally^{village Raikode Mandal, Medak Distrlct'}

¶10

2.MunnurRamulu,s/oManikReddy,agedabout65years,agriculturist'r/o Ramojipally village^{Raikodetvlandallvledak Diskict}

¶11

3.MunnurKistaiah,s/oManikreddy,agedabout50years,agriculturist'r/o Ramojipally village^{Raikodel\ilandal,MedakDistrict.}

¶12

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS^{NO.1TO 3}

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Soor Reddv. S/o Bal Reddv, aqed^{about73 years, occ. AgricultureBothare} r/o Ramojifally village,^{Raikode Mandal' Medak District.}

¶15

2 Smt.Aniamma. w/o Sammaiah,^{aqed about 75 years,occ Agriculture Both} ire r/o hamojipally^{village, RaikodeMandal' MedakDiskict'}

¶16

...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENTS'DEFENDANTS 1 & 2

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRl. K JAYASREE}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:^{None appeared}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEMUMMINENISUDHEERKUMAR} cIVIL REVISION^{PETITION No.2563 of 2023} ORDER:

¶21

This revision petition is^{filed :igzrinst an orclcr datccl} 31.O3.2023^passed by^{the Junior Civil} 'ludgc^{<:um Judicial} Magistrate of First^{Class, Zaheerabacltn I'A No'457 of 2014in} O.S.No.l57 of^2OO7.

¶22

The saicl application^{ri'as filcrl seeking conclonationof} detay of 1415 daysⁱⁿ filing^{thc applicrrtion underIX Rule 9 of} C.P.C.

¶23

ln the alfidavit tiled in^{slrpport r.rl'thesaid applicationit} was stated that the^{petitioncrNo.1 u'asaged about63 years by} the year 2OO9 and^{he was pursuing thc mattcrLrelbre the Court} on behaif of atl^{the petitioners and beceruse of his old age and} weak memory, he forgot^{the dateof hetrringin the said suit and} could not appear^{before the CourL lor givingevidence'Itis} further stated that the^{same was not an intentional and} deliberate omission.^{Dxcept the above reason,ther<: is no other} reason given in the affidavit^{liled insupport of thc said} application.

¶24

Learned trial Court,^{having considered the rt'asons given} by the petitioner and^{having observedthat the petitioners failed} to avail the opportunities^{that were afflordcd to thcmbefore} dismissing^{the sr.rit for default, has came Lo the cot rclusion that}

<br>

.iEI

the reasons givcn by thcm is not sulficient lor condoning the hugc delay of 141.5 clays.

¶30

This Court having gonc through the order under revision as well as the plaint and the written statemcnt hled in the said suit, is ol the cor.rsidcred vieu, that there is nothing for this Court to intcrferc rvitl-r tlx' ordcr passed by the learned trial Court.

¶31

Accordingly, this Crvil Rcvision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶32

As a sequel, Misccllancous Petitions, iI any pending, shall

¶33

stand dismisscd.

¶34

SD/.V KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR @ //TRUE^COPY"

¶35

SECTION^OFFICER

¶36

to'',. ,n" Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of^{First class at} , '"*"38tfgRl^{K JAYAsREE'Advocate[oPUC]} 3. Two^{CD Copies}

ADK .).--

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410912023

ORDER

CRP.No.2563 ot 2023

1 gE S r41s
(
1 s 0[T ?$23 .'- |
''.1'

¶43

DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

¶44

<br>

Munnur Vittal v. Soor Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munnur Vittal v. Soor Reddy

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

Shia Civil Council for Social Justice Vs Sri. Mohd. Masiullah Khan

Boosa Srinvas Reddy Vs Sri. Muzammil Khan, I.A.S

Ananth Balraj Vs Sri Sayyed Fareed Sayed Moosa

Gopu Sagar Pavan Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Lavudya Dev Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Mohammed Afzal Vs The State of Telangana