Dismissed

K.Rammurthy, Hyderabad v. Smt.K.Shankaramma (Died) Per L.R.S) Hyd, and 4 Others

Telangana HC10 Aug 2023SA/809/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law existed. Remand to the trial court was denied as impossible where there is no evidence to appreciate and such an order would merely prolong litigation initiated in 1995.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal was dismissed before admission; consequently, miscellaneous applications were closed.

K.Rammurthy, Hyderabad Vs Smt.K.Shankaramma… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TENTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICESAMBASIVARAONAIDU}

¶6

SECOND APPEAL^{NO: 809 OF 2017}

¶7

Appeal under section^{100 of C'P.C-, against the Judgmentpassed in} n.S.Uo.iiSlZOl 1, dated^{28-04-2015on the file of Court of the XXIV Additional} Cf,i"f Jrdg", City^{Civil Court, Hyderabadand confirmingthe Judgmentand} Decree daled 14.i0.1998^{passedin O.S.No.2730of 1995 on the file of Court of} the lll Junior Civil^{Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

about 60^years, Occ:^Retired K.Rammurthy, S/o.Sri.K.Balaiah,^Aged Employee, Rl/o.H.no.3-3-61^{5, ChappalBa} zar, Hyderabad.

¶10

APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Smt. K. Shankaramma^{(Died) per L.R'S.'}

¶13

2 K.Niraniani. D/o. late. Sri.K.Balaiah,^{Aged about 50 years, Occ:Household,} Ryo.H.nb.4-2-796 to 798,^{Ramkote, Hyderabad.}

¶14

3 K.Niiaruoa. D/o. late.^{Sri.K.Balaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ:Household,} Ryo.it.no.+-+-296 to 798,^{Ramkote Hyderabad,}

¶15

' ftouienoto K.Suvarna, , Wo. R/o.^{Sri.K.Venkateswar} H.No. 4-2-796 to 798, Ramkote,^{Rao,Aged about} Hyderabad.^{56 years,} ..^Occ:

¶16

" K. e.pf oGu, Srisailam, S/o.late. ny ot. 35-24l^{K.Balaiah, aged About 60 years,} l, Venkateshwarnagar, Jagatgirigutta,^occ:Retrrecl l' D P'L' Post'HYderabad'

¶17

...RESP.NDENT'

¶18

SAMP. NO: 1 613 oF²⁰¹⁷

¶19

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant} interim inlunction^{against the respondents restraining them from.creating third} f"rty^{int"r".t in all that House Bearing No.4-2-796to 798 admeasuring88} 5q.V"tA. situated^{at Ram Kote,Hyderabadpending disposal of the SA'}

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRl. J RAMA KRISHNA}

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent^{no.2and 3: Sri VENKAT RAGHU RAMULU} Counsel for the^{Respondent no.4and 5: None Appeared} The Court made^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

S.A.NO.8O9 of 2

"ot7

J UDGMENT:

This is a Second Appeal preferrerl by the appellant, who is plaintiff in os.No.2730 of 1995 on the f re of III Junror civir Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and appellant in AS.No.215 of 2011 on the file of XXIV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civit Court. This appeat has been filed under Section 100 oF c.p.c. ,:hailenging the concurrent finding of the courts berow by which the request of the plaintiff for cancellation of a decree passed in oS.Nr:.2695 of 1991 on the fire of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, l{yderabad was negatived. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that the Courts below without appreciating l.he Facts that there is no evidence on record by both the parties instead oF dismissing the suit for defaurt under order IX Rure B c.p.c., dismissed the suit on merits and questioned the Judgment on the ground that the first appellate Court failed to consider his cont:ention and failed to apply its mind while disposing the First appear and craimed that the

¶27

55RN,] S.A.No.809 of 2017

¶28

appellate Court blindly confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court without giving any specific reason for such confirmation.

¶29

Since this appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.p.C., the appellant is supposed to make out a case by showing that there is a substantial question of law involved for admitting the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant while advancing arguments sought for remanding the matter to the trial Court and admitted that the plaintiFf could not adduce any evidence and if the remand is allowed, it will facilitate the appellant to produce evidence. However, according to Order 41 Rule 23 C.P.C., remand cannot be passed by the appellate Court as a matter of course. The appellant has to make out a case for remand of the suit. In order to pass such order, this Court must find out some material which needs to be re-appreciated by the trial Court. In the case on hand, thereis no evidence at all, therefore, request for remand to enable the appellant to produce evidence after such a long time cannot be entertained.

¶30

As could be seen from the Judgment impugned in the appeal and as per the Judgment of the trial Court, it is quite clear that though the plaintiff flled the suit in the year 1995 and though

¶31

¶32

¶33

SSRN,J 5.A No.8O9 of 2017

¶34

the first defendant filed written statement, issues framed, the plaintiFf having riled the chief affidavit did not choose to attend the Court in spite of repeated adjournments, he did not turn up before the Court. The defendant did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, the suit was dismissed with a finding that there is no positive evide.ce on record. The suit was disposed on 14-10-1998. The firsl: appeal preferred by the appellant herein was fired in the year 2011 but he courd not substantiate as to how he can claim the relief sought for in the suit. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant in view of his failure to produce any evidence, the appeal was also dismissed. Even though, the appellant has formulated some questions naming them as substantial questions of law ,:ould not succeed to show that substantial question of law is irvolved for admitting the appeal. The grounds raised by the altpellant and the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant cernnot show that there is a substantial question of raw for admitting the appear. If the request of the appellant is considered for rernanding the matter, it is nothing but giving a scope to prolong the litigation which was

¶35

¶36

SSRN,] S.4.No.809 of²⁰¹⁷

¶37

initiated in the^year 1995. Therefore,^{the appeal fails and liable to} be dismissed.

¶38

In the result, the Second^{Appeal is dismissedbefore}

¶39

ad m ission .

¶40

Consequently, Miscellaneous^{applications if any, are closed.} No costs.

¶41

Sd/. M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The lll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (With Records if any) 2. The )filv Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRl. J SRI RAMA KRISHNA, Advocate TOPUCI 4. One CC to SRl. VENKAT RAGHU RAMULU, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies pr VH

80.\Q^

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010812023

JUDGMENT

SA.No.809 o12017

11'3 S T47 s C)
)'.l:
3 1 0[i 2823
.j. + ^ i
'.. r'.-..,rr,-11-, 1!-_

DISMISSING THE

SECOND APPEAL

rtc^, \s\o^u,

K.Rammurthy, Hyderabad v. Smt.K.Shankaramma (Died) Per L.R.S) Hyd, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rammurthy, Hyderabad v. Smt.K.Shankaramma (Died) Per L.R.S) Hyd, and 4 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

M.Mogulaiah (died) Vs Ramchander

D. Sanjeevaiah Vs N. Mogulaiah

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs P.Bichupalli

The Managing Director and Another Vs Ashwin Kumar Kola

United India Insurance Compnay Limited Vs Mr. Garipally Jagadishwar And Another

Kodipelli Narsaiah Vs Gangam Malla Reddy