Dismissed

Mahnoor Ali Abbas, v. Mohd Basheer Ahmed

Telangana HC24 Mar 2023CRP/516/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench High Court dismissed four civil revision petitions. The court upheld the trial court's order declining to condone a delay of 1972 days in filing written statements and treating cross-examination as nil due to the defendants' absence. The High Court observed no error in the lower court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions CrP.No.511, 513, 515 & 516 of 2023 dismissed.

Mahnoor Ali Abbas, Vs Mohd Basheer Ahmed — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^2s86 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:511 513 515 & 516 ol 2023

¶7

CRP.No.511 ol 2023

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order Dated 24-01-2023 passed in l.A.No.97 of 2023 in O.S.No.978 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1 . Mahnoor Ali Abbas, Wio.Ali Abbas, aged about 55 years, Occ. Retd. Director, No.22-1-92O, Sultanpura, Hyderabad.

¶11

.,r

¶12

M/s. Concorde Enterprises, Rep. by its proprietor Mahnoor Ali Abbas, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Retd- Director Fl/o. H.No.22- 1-920, Sulthanpura, Hyderabad.

¶13

...Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants No.1 & 2

¶14

AND

¶15

Mohammed Abdui Khadeer, S/o. Late lvlohammed Abdul Qhader Alias Jani Miya, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 13-5-37118, Taleem Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by its lvlanaging Director, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Deputy Registrar/OSDiFRV 127, Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad

¶18

...Respondents/Plaintiff/Defendants

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

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 stay all further proceedings in OS No. 978 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition

¶21

erE'-.--

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P. CHANDRASHEKAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SHAIK JILANI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.2,3: None Appeared

¶25

CRP.No.513 of 2023

¶26

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order Dated 24-01-2023^passed in l.A.No.91 of 2023 in O.S.No.774 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyde rabad.

¶27

Between:

¶28

I,4ahnoor Ali Abbas, Wo.Ali Abbas, aged about 55 years, Occ.. Retd. Director, N o.22-1 -920, Sultanpura, Hyderabad,

¶29

ltAls. Concorde Enterprises, Rep. by its proprietor [Vlahnoor AIi Abbas, Aged about 51 years, Occ.. Retd. Director Rl/o. H.No.22-1-920, Sulthanpura, Hyderabad

¶30

...Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants No.1 & 2

¶31

AND

¶32

Tabasum Begum, Wo. Mohammed Abdul Rahman, Aged about 40 years;i Occ.Housewife, R/o.H.No.'1 3-5-371 m Taleem Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad

¶33

Master lvlohd. Abdul Samee, S/o. Mohammed Abdul Rahman, Aged aboutl4 years, Occ..Student, F|/o. H.No.13-5-371m Taleem Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad (being minor Represented by his natural Mother and Guardian TabasumBegum) ...Respondents/Respondents/PlaintiffsNo.l&2

¶34

The Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd, Rep.by its Managing Director, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶35

The Deputy Registrar/OSD/FRV 127, Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad

¶36

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants No.3 & 4

¶37

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶38

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further^proceedings in OS No. 774 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition

¶39

Counsel^{for the Petitioners:SRI P. CHANDRASHEKAR}

¶40

Counsel^{for the RespondentsNo.1& 2: SHAIK JILANI}

¶41

Counsel^{for the RespondentsNo.3&4: None Appeared}

¶42

CRP.^{No.515 of 2023}

¶43

petition under Article 227 oI lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order Dated^{24-01-2023 passed in LA.No.89of 2023in O.S.No.775of 2016 on the fiie} of the^{Court of the XVll Additional SeniorCivil Judge, City Civil Court,} Hyderabad.

¶44

Between:

¶45

Mahnoor^{Ali Abbas,, Wo. Ali Abbas, agedabout 55 years, Occ.. Retd.} Director,^{N o.22-1 -92O, Sultanpura, Hyderabad,}

¶46

M/s.^{Concorde Enterprises,, Rep. by its proprietor[,4ahnoorAli Abbas,Aged} about 51^{years, Occ.. Retd.DirectorR/o. H.No.22-1-920,Sulthanpura,} Hyderabad

¶47

.,.Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants No.1 & 2

¶48

AND

¶49

1 Mrs. Kanees^{Fatima,,Wo. MohammedAbdulHameed,Aged about 47 years,} Occ.. Housewife,^{Rl/o.13-5-371} ,^{TaleemAmlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad.-}

¶50

2 Mr. Mohammed^{Abdul Gaffar,,S/o. lVlohammedAbdulHameed,Aged about} 28^{years, Occ.. Business, R/o. 13-5-371, TaleemAmlapur,Karwan,} Hyderabad

¶51

The^{Charminar CooperativeUrban Bank Ltd.,, Rep. by its tVlanagingDirector,} Saifabad,^HYderabad

¶52

The^{DeputyRegistrar/OSD/FRV 127,, CharminarCo-operativeUrbanBank} Ltd.,^Hyderabad

¶53

...Responde nts/Plaintiffs/Defendants

¶54

IANo:^{10F 2023}

¶55

Petition^{underSection151CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the^{affidavitfiled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} stav all^{further proceedings in OS No. 775 of 2O16on the file of the Hon'ble XVll} Additional^{SeniorCivil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad,pending disposalof} the Civil^{Revision Petition}

¶56

Counsel^{for the Petitioners: SRl. P. CHANDRASHEKAR}

¶57

Counsel^{for the RespondentsNo.1&2: SHAIK JILANI}

¶58

Counsel^{for the RespondentsNo.3&4: None Appeared}

¶59

CRP.No.516 of 2023

¶60

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order Daled 24-01-2023 passed in l.A.No.93 of 2023 in O.S.No.773 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the XVll Additional Senior Civil Judqe, City Civii Court, Hyderabad.

¶61

Between:

¶62

Mahnoor Ali Abbas,, W/o.Ali Abbas, aged about 55 years, Occ-. Retd. Director, N o.22-1 -920, Sultanpura, Hyderabad,

¶63

lllls. Concorde Enterprises,, Rep. by its proprietor Mahnoor Ali Abbas, Aged about 51 years, Occ.. Retd. Director Fl/o. H.No.22-1-920, Sulthanpura, Hyderabad

¶64

... Petitione rs/Petitioners/Defendants No.1 & 2

¶65

AND

¶66

N/ohd Basheer Ahmed,, S/o. Late Mohammed Ahmed, Aged about 64 years, Occ.. Business, Rio. H. No. 13-5-372, Aaleem Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad

¶67

Mohammed ShabbirAhmed,, S/o. Mohammed BasheerAhmed, Aged about 35 years, Occ.. Business,. R/o. H. No. 13-5-372, Aaleem Amlapur, Karuvan, Hyderabad.

¶68

Mohammed Waheed Ahmed,, S/o. Mohammed BasheerAhmed, Aged aboLt 33 years, Occ.. Business, Rl/o H. No. 13-5-372, Aaleem Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad.

¶69

fvlohammed Shakir Ahmed,, S/o. Mohammed Basheer Ahmed, Aged about 30 years, Occ,. Business, Rl/o H. No. 13-5-372, Aaleem Amlapur, Kanirran, Hyderabad.

¶70

Mohammed Zakir Ahmed,, S/o. Mohammed Basheer Ahmed, Aged about 29 years, Occ.. Business, Fl/o. H. No. 13-5-372, Aaleem Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad.

¶71

Mohammed ZameerAhmed,, S/o. Mohammed BasheerAhmed, Aged about 25 years, Occ.. Business, FIo. H. No.^'13-5-372, Aaleem Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad.

¶72

The Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.,, Rep. by its Managing Director, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶73

The Deputy Registrar/OSD/FRV 127,, Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad

¶74

... Responde nts/Plaintiffs/Defendants

¶75

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶76

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 stay all further proceedings in OS No. 773 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.

¶77

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P. CHANDRASHEKAR

¶78

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6: SHAIK JILANI

¶79

Counsel for the Respondents No. 7 & 8: None Appeared

¶80

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶81

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEP.NAVEEN RAO}

¶82

COMMON^ORDER:

¶83

Heard^{lcarur:d counselSriP.Chandrashekarforthe} pet itioncrs^{andt hc lcarncd counsel Sri Shaik Jilani for the} ;esPondenL^{no' l '}

¶84

Thcse^{four Rcvisionsare preferred againstthe Orders in} rcsp(:cti'('^{LAs..l'ilccl tlndr:r Section148 read with Sectionl5l} of^{C6dc ol' Crvil Proccdure, 1908 (CPC)praying the Court to} receive^{the petitions vide S.R.Nos-2149/2017,2191/2017,} 2).g512017,^{219212017, clated 24.O8.2O17,respectively, filed} along^{n'iLl-r u rittctt stiltcmenlsby condoning the deiayof 1972} days in^{the respective l As'}

¶85

On^O5.01.2017 ,^{the right to file written statement by the} de[endants 1^{and 2 was forfeited by the trial Court. On} 24.08.2017^{defendants Iand 2 filed petitions underSection} 151 of CPC^{to set asidethe order dated 05.01.2017filed along} with written statements.^{The said petitionswere returnedwith} objections by the^{Sectionon 05.O9.2O17.Thereafter,issues} were^framed on^{07 .O4.2O21; plaintiff hled chief-affidavit;} Advocate-Commissione^{rwas appointecl torecordcross-}

¶86

¶87

cxamination of P.W.1. On 04.O1.2023, thc AdvocateCommissioner filed report pertaining to cross-examination ol P.W.l

¶88

On the said date, learned counsel appcaring for defendants I and 2 appeared before the Court and requested that petitioners/ defendants I and 2 should be given opportunity to cross-examine P.W. 1. Though right to file written statement was forfeited, the Court below directed the AdvocateCommissioner to record cross-examination of P.W. I by counsel appearing lor defendants 1 and 2 on 07.O1.2023 at 11.30 a.m. and submit report by 09.O1.2023. On 09.O1.2023, the Advocate-Commissioner filed a Memo stating that on 07.O1.2O23 at 11.30 a.m., as directed by the plaintiff/P.W.1, counsel for the plaintiff and the Advocate-Commissioner were present at Commission Hall and waited till 12.3O Noon, but defendants 1 and 2 and their counsel did not turn up and the same was recorded.

¶89

The Court below observed that as suit is of the year 2016, and in spite of right to file written statement by the defendants I and, 2 was forfeited on 05.01.2017, Court gave opportunity to cross-examine P.W. 1, but defendants I and 2 failed to cross-

¶90

t\li^/ r /i/ ,^jr / ,1 :t1lⁱ ri btrcil

¶91

¶92

examine P.W. I on tht: date and^time{-rxed by the^Court and, thercfore, cross-examination^{of P.W. 1 by} the defendants I and,2 is treated as 'NIL' on O9.O 1.2023 and suit was posted for further plaintiff's eviclence.

¶93

On 18.01.2023, the learned counsel for defendants reported that the Advocate-Commissioner has not informed them regarding cross cxamination of P.W. l. This was not accepted by thc trial Court. On detailed consideration of the petitions hled by thc petitioners to receive the petitions vide S.R.Nos.2189/2017, 219r/2017, 219512017, 219212017, dated 24.O8.20 1 7, rcsPcctive [v,, along with written statements to condone delay of 1972 days were considered and having regard to the conduct of the parties, Court below declined to condone the delay in all l'our pelitions.

¶94

In the afhdavit filed in support of the petitions, it is averred that due to various family problems, defendants could not give instructions to their counsei to prepare written statements to be filed in the Court. It is further averred in paragraph-S of the affidavit that defendants gave instructions to their counsel and the learned counsel prepared the written statements along r.l,ith thc petitions and the same were liled in

the Court on^{24.08.2017and the same wcrc returnedby thc} Office stating that^{petitions were} filed with u,rong^provision of law and notices^were not served on the other side counsel. ?hough learned counsel has taken back the petitions, they u,ere not resubmitted and kept in the case bundles. This fact came to the knowledge of the defendants only after they saw the paper publication and immediately they tried to contract their counsel, but he ^,as not available, as such they liled thc Vakalat b1, engaging another Advocate.

¶99

Defendants have also taken the plea that due to Covid 19 pandemic, they could not approach their counscl and resubmit the petitions. This was considered by the trial Court and the trial Court found that defendants had sufficient time to resubmit thc petitions much before upsurge of Covid- 19 pandemic and therefore they could not take such defence since the Office raised the objections on 05.O1.2017 i.e., much prior to Covid-l9 pandemic. Having seen the conduct of the parties and having regard to the delay in prosecuting the matters, trial Court dismissed the petitions.

¶100

learned counsel for petitioners sought to contend that written statements arc Illcd long back and the plaintiff filed

¶101

/,.^.J r:li ,,.) I / u/^{r'/,'.r.</sup> ,rrlL*}

¶102

()

¶103

¶104

chiefl-examinations onlv in April, 202¹ . The refore, by condoning the delay, no prejudicc u'ould bc caused to the plaintiff and on the contrary, gravc prcjudicc n,ould bc ctrused to the petitioners if the_v-- are not permittcd to de[end by filing written statements. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Court in c.Saty,anaraya vs. M.Shankarl.

¶105

From the reading of paragraph- 1O of the said^judgment, it is seen that there was latches on thl- part of the Advocate and the Court observed thzrt dr-re t() thc latches of learned Advocate, the party cannot bc blamed and, therefore, the Court inclined to condone the delay. In the instant case, petitioners are not blaming the lawyer. Furthermorc, in the instant cases, there is inordinate delay in prosccuting/ reprcsenting the applications. Furthermore, as noticed by the trial Court, even though leave was granted by the trial Court, defendants have not appeared before the Advocate-Commissioner, when the date fixed, to cross-examine P.W. 1. The Court below rightly rejected the applications having found that the defendants are dragging on the matters and are not interested in prosecuting the litigation properly.

'ualtu/np/oooglzoot

.-t

t\ii

i /i/, \ ,^{1/r ,,r 'rr i.i i!n,rn'r}

¶110

They^{arc wcllconsiclered Orders' I seeno error in the decisions} of the^{lo'"1'er Courl \-;lrrr;tt-rtinginterfercnce' The CivilRcvision} Petitions are^{dismissed Pending miscellaneousapplicationsif any}

¶111

shall stand^closed'

¶112

,TRUE COPY'

¶113

Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (-D

¶114

SEci|oN oFFIcER

¶115

To,

¶116

'1 . The XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad District.

¶117

One CC to SRl. P. CHANDRASHEKAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶118

One CC to SRl. SHAIK JlLANl, Advocate IOPUC]

¶119

Two CD Copies

kam

$P'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2410312023

-fA I t: o
:(Y \\ $E
15
\q

¶126

COMMON ORDER

¶127

CRP.Nos.511,513, 515 & 516 of 2023

¶128

THE CIUL REVISION PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED

¶129

v ,\A{F

Mahnoor Ali Abbas, v. Mohd Basheer Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahnoor Ali Abbas, v. Mohd Basheer Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Usha alias K. Usha Vs M.V. Hanumantha Rao

Smt. Suchitra Dhagat Vs Mrs. G. Sumanlata

Major Pankaj Rai Vs Krisnavani Rai

Mahnoor Ali Abbas Vs Tabasum Begum

Mahnoor Ali Abbas, Vs Mrs. Kanees Fatima

Mahnoor Ali Abbas Vs Mohammed Abdul Khadeer