Disposed

Mrs. SalvaruLaxmi and another v. Mrs. Salvaru Leela and 3 others

Telangana HC7 Jul 2023CRP/881/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court intervened in a civil suit for partition, setting aside the trial court's dismissal of an application to file a rejoinder. The Court held that leave under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC should have been granted and permitted additional pleadings starting from Page 5 to be considered.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mrs. SalvaruLaxmi and another Vs Mrs. Salvaru Leela and 3 others — Partition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320e ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HoN'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶7

clvtL REVISlON PETITION NO: 881 0F 2023

¶8

Petition under Arlicle 227 of constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 07.02-2023 in 1.A.No.380 of 2o21 in o.S.No.44 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Siddipet at Medak

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 Mrs. Salvarulaxmi, D/o Wo Mahesh Kumar, age 40 years, Occ House wife, Rl/o H. No. 11- 1- 413, Mailargadda, Seethaphalirandi,-secdnderabad

¶11

2 Mrs. Salvaru Sunitha, D/o late SalvaruBalaji Wo Kiran Kumar, Aqe 3g vears. Occ House wife, Ri/o HNo. 5- 35, Mvekanajar ,Ramayan pet, trleO-ak Oisirict^' ...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

Mrs.- Salv-aru Leela, Wo Salvaru Balaji, Age 60 lrears, Occ House wife, Fi/o 12- 83, (Gumptom), Toopran Road, Gajwel, Metiak District. Landmark' Backside of Ganesh Traders. Contact No. 7416415591.

¶14

Mr. S_alvaru Sriramulu, S/o SalvaruBalali, Age about 39 years, Occ Business, I/o^{cang9h,Ira9ers, (Gumprom), ToopianRoad, Gajwril} ,^{M6dak District.} Contact No 9849614966.

¶15

Salvaru Go_uri Shankar @ Babu, S/o Salavru Balaji Age about 37 years, Occ Bushess, R/-o 12- 8.1/1, (Gumptom), Toopran Roab, Gajwel, Med;k Disirici. Contact No 8465050574.

¶16

Tahasildar, Gajwel, Medak District.

¶17

IA i1 oF 2023

¶18

...RESPONOENTS

¶19

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 grant the stay the all proceedings in OS No. 44 of 2016 on the file of the Honble Principal Senior Civil Judge Siddipet at Medak during {he pendency of CRp in the interest of justice and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. M. GOUD

¶21

counsel for Respondents: SRI M. S. ACHYUTH BHARTHWA'

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.EEl of 2o23

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri M.M.Goud, Iearned counsel for the revision petitioners. Though Sri M.S.Ach1'uth Bharthwaj is on record representing Respondent Nos.l to 3, learned counsel failed to make his appeErrance and submit his contentions. Likewise, there is no representation for Respondent No.4.

¶27

This Revrsion Petition is fited challenging the order of the Court of Principai Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, in I.A.No.38O of 2O2l in O.S.No.44 of 2016, dated O2.O2.2O23. The revision petitioners, who are plaintiffs to the suit, moved an application vide I.A.No.380 of 2O2l seeking the Court to receive the rejoinder filed b-y rhem. The Courr, through the impugned order, negatived the requesr and aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is liled.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners filed a suit for partirion and in the said suit, Respondent Nos.l to 3 filed u,ritten statement. To give clarity to the pleadings, the pctitioncrs filed a rejoinder and seeking the Court to receive the saiti rejoinder, an application was filed. But the Court dismissecl the said petition. Learned

¶29

¶30

Ot.csL,l

¶31

counsel states that the reasoning given by the Court is beyond truth and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Para 6 of the impugned order reads as foliows:-

¶32

"6. The present petition is filed seeking petmission from the Court to receiue the rejoinder. On pentsal of reard the rejoinder was filed on O8.02.2018 and the present application is filed on 22.12.2021 after delag of 3 % gears. Adding to it, catse title in the petition is not properlg mentioned. TIE rejoinder is also in the form of reply to the utritten statem.ent and tLere are no reasons mentioned in the petition as to uhA the plaintiff is seeking to file rejoinder. In the aboue ciratmstances, as petition is filed at a belated stage utith tLe u)rong cause title and without proper ground.s, tLe Court is inclined not to allou tLte present application and occordingly tle petition is dismissed. "

¶33

karned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the Tahsilrlar, Gajwel, is one of the defendants to the suit and he is arrayed as one of the respondents in the Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.380 of 2021. Learned counsel also states that the petitioners filed rejoinder along with the Interlocutory Application, but, as the said Interlocutory Application was misplaced at the office of the Court, another application was frled. But the said^point was not taken note of by the trial Court. l,earned counsel finally states that as the suit is for^partition of^pr_p_nerties

¶34

¶35

Ot.aSLt cRD.No 861o12023

¶36

f (

¶37

arnong the family members, the rejoinder would help the Court in disposing the suit comprehensively and as the trial is not yet commenced, hence, an opportunity may be given.

¶38

Having gone through the contents of the petition filed and the impugned order, this Court is of the view that without assigning proper reasons as to why the rejoinder should not be received, the Court disallowed the application.

¶39

Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. states rhat no pleadings subsequent to the written statement other than by way of defence to set-off or counter claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court. As the suit is for partition of properties, leave to file rejoinder ought to have been granted. When the rejoinder is gone through, this Court flnds that in the initial paragraphs, the petitioners have given reply to the written statement contents. Such a reply is not required. However, so far as additional pleadings are concerned which starts from Page 5, the Court can take into consideration such additional pleadings. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the following manner.

¶40

Tlte order that is rendered. by th_e Court of pnncipat Senior Ciuil Judge, Sidd,ipet, in I.A.No.3BO of 202 1 in O.S.No.44 of 2016, datert 07.02.2O23, is set_aside.

¶41

¶42

Ot.(5L,J ceP-No-8al oJ 2023

¶43

Hotueuer, th.e rejoinder is permitted to be ansidered from^{tlrc point of addttional plead.ings which starts} from Page 5 and ends at Page 6 of the rejoinder. Tlere shall be no ord.er as to costs.

¶44

Miscellaneous pelitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE^COPY//

Sd/- P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANLREGISTRAR sEc!f,ft oFFrcER

¶49

To, 1. The Principal^{Senior Civil Judge,Sid-dipeta! Medak}

¶50

a: 3r^{g3t3 S[ M Yf""",',fi'Jfl:ft1"-3i:9LteropUC]} 4. Two CD^CoPies M1?

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0710712023

l,i'(
)
1e rlJBzm 7
!..,!,,
:'-g.f $r1'l iHL--.,-
--I-;,, ;;5-"'
ORDER

¶56

GRP.No.881 of 2023

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

¶58

v,t

Mrs. SalvaruLaxmi and another v. Mrs. Salvaru Leela and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mrs. SalvaruLaxmi and another v. Mrs. Salvaru Leela and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Syed Zakir Hussain, Vs The State Of Telangana

Mr. Mohammed Nissar Vs The State of Telangana

Kasturi Srimanjari Vs The State of Telangana

Porandla Anand , Anandam Vs The State of Telangana

Sanjay Dhanuka Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

Dattatri Rao Vs Akshay