CRP/3800/2023 of Sri. Muthyam Mahender Goud Vs Gandi Abhishek Goud on 29 December 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT [FOR ][THE STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH [DAYOF ][DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY [THREE]

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI [JUSTICE ][T.VINOD ][KUMAR]

CIVIL REVISION PETITION [N][os: ][3773 AND 3800 ][0f ][2023]

c R.P.No. 3773 ot [2023]

Petition filed under Article 227 [of ][the constitution ][of ][lndia, aggrieved ][by ][the_]Docket Order dated 01.12.2023 [passed in l.A. No. ][1393 ][of ][2023 ][in ][FCOP No' ][213 ][of]2023 on the file of the [Court ][of ][the ][I ][Additional District and ][Sessions Judge ][- ][cum ][-]Additional Family Court at MedchaFMalkajgiri [District at Malkajgiri']

Between:

Sri tvluthvam Mahender Goud, [S/o. Sri. ][M. ][Vidya ][Sagar ][Goud Aged about' ][33]u"rri. dcc. Software [Emploiee ][R/o ][H.No. 9-91/136 and137, ][Kushaiguda]bammaiguda Keesara Mandal, [Medchal Malkaigiri District]

...Petitioner/RespondenUPetitioner

AND

tvluthvam Amulva. wo sri. Mahender [Goud D/o Late Sri. G. ][Srinivas ][Goud]AoeO'iUout. ei Vears, Occ. [Pvl ][Emptoyee ][Rio ][H.No. ][2-6013, Ahmedguda']B5ndlaguda Keesara Mandal, [Medchal ][Malkajgiri District]

..RespondenUPetitioner/Proposed [GPA ][Holder]

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under section [15'1 ][of ][cPC ][praying that ][in ][the circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed [in ][support ][of the ][petition, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to]suspend the operation [of order ][dated 1-12-2023 passed in l-A.No.1393 of ][2O23 ][in]F.C O.P.No.213 ot 2023 on [the ][file of ][the ][I ][Additional ][District ][and ][Sessions ][Judge]cum Additional Family [court, ][Medchal ][Malkaigiri ][District ][at ][tvlalkajgiri ][Pendrng]disposal of the above [C.R.P.]

c.R P.No.3800 ol 2023

Petition filed under Article 227 [ot ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia, ][qgsrr-eYqd qy ]-the-ooct<etoiJero,it"dot.tz.zo23passed [in l.A. No. ][1392of ][2023 ][in ][FCOP ][No.213of]the file of the Court of [the ][I ][Additional ][District ][and ][Sessions Judge ][- ][cum ][-]iOii "" Additional Family Court [at ][Medchal-Malkajgiri District ][at ][tvlalkajgiri']

Between:

Sri lvluthvam Mahender [Goud, S/o Sri. ][M' ][Vidya Sagar-Goud ][Aged ][about ][33];;;;";.'d;. si,ri*"* [erptovee ruo ][HNo.'9 ][-91/136and13'7' Kushaisuda]bammaigraa [Keesara ][Manda[, Medchal ][Malkajgiri ][District]

...Petitioner/Respondent [No.1 ][/Petitioner]

AND

1Gandi Abhishek [Goud, S/o.G. Srinivas Goud' Aged about 31-years, ][O.t: ]?4Rl/o.H.No-2- [60/3 ][Ahmed ][Guda, ][Bandlaguda, Keesara ][Manoal']Rl/o.H.No-2- [60/3 ][Ahmed ][Guda, ][Bandlaguda, Keesara ][Manoal']e.pioy"u, Medchal-Malkajgiri [District]Medchal-Malkajgiri [District]

2Sri. Muthyam [Amulya, ][W/o Sri. ][Mahender ][Goud D/o Late ][Sri ][G ][Srinivas]6orJ lqltd [aboutl ]3t [Years, ][Occ. ][Pvt ][Employee ][R/o ][H ][No ][2-60/3']ni."Og;Jr, Binotaguaa [Keesara Mandal, Medchal ][Malkajgiri ][District']6orJ lqltd [aboutl ]3t [Years, ][Occ. ][Pvt ][Employee ][R/o ][H ][No ][2-60/3']ni."Og;Jr, Binotaguaa [Keesara Mandal, Medchal ][Malkajgiri ][District']

...Respondents/Petitioner/Proposed [GPA ][Holder/Respondent No'2]

1A NO:1 OF 2023

Petition under Section [151 ][of ][cPC ][praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit [filed in ][support ][of the ][petition, ][the ][High ][court ][may be pleased ][to]irrpuni the operation [of ][order ][dated ][1t12t2023 ][passed in ][1.A.No.1392 ][of ][2023 ][in]of [2023 ][on ][the ][file ][of ][the ][I ][Additional ][District ][and ][Sessions Judge]r.c.o.p.No.zta disposal of "r, [Addition"l ]the [above ][Family ][C.R ][court, ][P][Ir,4edchal ][Malkajgiri District ][at ][Malkaigiri ][Pending]

Counsel for the [Petitioner (in ][both) ][: ][Sri ][Jeeripothula ][Srinivas]

Counsel for Respondents [(in ][both) ][: ][None ][appeared]

The Gourt made [the ][following: ][COMMON ORDER]

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD KUMARCML REVISION PETITION Nos.3773 and 3E00 of [2023]COMMON ORDER:

Despite the Courts time and again deprecating the [practice ]oflawyers shouldering the blame in order to [get ]favorable [orders, ][it]appears that the said practice not only flourishes till date, [but that ][it]has percolated to an extent of blaming [his ][own ][office ][colleagues ][to]please the client without advising the client properly [that opposing]every application/petition filed before the Court [is unnecssary. ][This]new lorm is even more unsavory as it is [the ][junior ][advocate ][who ][is]now madc a scapegoat to rewind [judicial ]outcomes.2. l.he bricf facts leading up to these ill-advised [revisions ][are]that, the petitioner (husband) herein [had ][filed ][F.C.O.P. ][No.2l3 ][oi]2021 under Section l3(1) of the Hindu Marriage [Act, ][1953 ][seekirrg]divorce bcfbre the I Additional District & Sessions Judge [cum]Additionat Famity Court, at Malkajgiri, [Medchal ][Malkajgiri]District (lirr shoft 'Trial Court'). In the said OP [the ][respondent]No. thvile had flled an interlocutory [application ][numbered ][as ][I.A]No. I i9i ol 2023 under Rule 33 of Civil Rules [of ][Practice ][read]

with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, l90g (for short'the Code, 1908') seeking permission of the Court to appoint therespondent No.2 herein who is her brother, as her GpA to representher in the proceedings. The application was made orL the groundthat she had received acceptance to the Saint Louise University to aGraduation Course, as a result of which she would not be able tophysically attend the proceedings. Similarly, the respondentNo.2/brother, filed I.A. No. 1393 oi 202i under Rule 32 of the CivilRules of Practice read with Section I5l of the Code, 190g seekingpermission of the Court to act as the GpA holder of the respondentNo.l. The Court below on 01.12.2023 had passed the impugneddocket orders allowing the said applications with the followingobservat ion:

'advocttte lor tlrc raslxtndent t,tttktr.st,tl tt.t no obiection, the pelilion is allowed.'3. These revisions are flled on the ground that the endorsementof no objection was madc by a junior Counsel without receiving3. These revisions are flled on the ground that the endorsementof no objection was madc by a junior Counsel without receivingany instructions from thc Counsel fbr the petitioner herein; and thatthe party to a lirigation should not be made to suffer for the mistakeol a [j ]unior Counsel.ol a [j ]unior Counsel.

4. During the [course][ of ][hearing ][this ][Court had ][expressed]displeasure [over ][the ][practice ][of ][blaming ][the ][junior ][Counsel']However, [leamed Counsel ][for ][the petitioner ][vehemently ][argued]that appearing [before ][a ][Court ][without ][the instructions ][of ][the senior]ought not [to be resorted ][to by ][the ][said ][junior ][Counsel']

5. Though, [this ][Court had ][cautioned ][about ][making ][such]submissions, [Iearned ][Counsel ][for ][the ][petitioner ][had ][not ][only ][failed]to amend [his conduct, ][but ][had also ][claimed that the mistake ][of ][the]junior Counsel [is the ][only ][reason ][for ][the ][application being ][allowed']

6. I have [taken note ][of ][the ][submissions made and perused ][the]record.

It is to be is to be to be be [[seen ][that according ][to the ][learned ]][[that according ][to the ][learned ]][[to the ][learned ]][[learned ]][[Counsel ][for ][the]][[for ][the]][[the]]

7. It is to be is to be to be be [[seen ][that according ][to the ][learned ]][[that according ][to the ][learned ]][[to the ][learned ]][[learned ]][[Counsel ][for ][the]][[for ][the]][[the]]petitioner, [the said.iunior ][Counsel had enrolled ][with ][the ][State ][Bar]Council [just ][tw'o months ][prior to this incident' ][It ][is ][not ][unheard ][of]that {ieshers [rarcly ][operate ][or ][take any ][step ][without ][express]instructions [ii-om ][a ][senior. ][More ][particularly, ][since ][the effect ][of ][an]endorsement [ol ]['tut ][rth.iectiorz' ][would ][adversely ][affect the ][outcome]of the [apptication, ][it ][is not ][plausible that the ][said ][junior ][Counsel]would endorse [the ][same ][out ][of ][his/her ][own ][volition' ][It ][is ][most]

unfortunate that an advocate who was supposed to mentor has nowresorted to litigation tactics by blaming his junior Counsel to obtaina favourable order from this Court. The said conduct of theCounsel for the petitioner ought to be condemneda favourable order from this Court. The said conduct of theCounsel for the petitioner ought to be condemned

8. Further, evidently no further explanation is of'fered for seeking an indulgence from this Court to rernit the matter: for freshconsiderationconsideration

9. That apart, it is to be seen that no prejudice would be causedto the petitioner if the impugned order is sustained, as it r.r'ould onlygive the respondent No. I a fair chance ro contest thc main O.P.

10. Therefore, this Court does not see anv reason to interferewith the impugned orders in exercise of its supen,isory jurisdictionconferred under Article 227 ol the Constitution o [' tndia.

I 1. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Pctitions are disnrissed

12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No orders as to cosr SdI MOHD.ISAILASSISTANT [REGI]RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The I Additional [District and ][sessions ][Judge ][- ][cum ][- ][Additional Family ][court]at Medchal-Malkajgiri [District ][at ][I\'4alkaigiri]z. b-rid CC to [Sii ][Jeb"ripotnuta ][Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]]3. Two CD [CoPies]Nib/,th-<- /rat Medchal-Malkajgiri [District ][at ][I\'4alkaigiri]z. b-rid CC to [Sii ][Jeb"ripotnuta ][Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]]3. Two CD [CoPies]Nib/,th-<- /r HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

COMMON ORDERCRP.Nos.3773 & 3800 of 2023

DISMISSING BOTH THE CRP'S

\,l

:\ .\1P, [L ][li ][l,'.]i^5tu'1 o^1t:.J0 B [l\r[V ][2!2{],,+.il\ ^