Telangana High Court
CRP/4242/2015 of State Bank of Hyderabad, Vs Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4242 of 2015 ORDER: This revision is preferred by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit, who moved I.A.No.1134 of 2014 in O.S.No.430 of 2008 asking the Court to frame a couple of preliminary issues for speedy disposal of the suit.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4242 of 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This revision is preferred by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit,who moved I.A.No.1134 of 2014 in O.S.No.430 of 2008 asking theCourt to frame a couple of preliminary issues for speedy disposal of thesuit. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is theplaintiff. As it is too well known the plaintiff-Corporation is establishedin furtherance of Section 3 of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, aParliamentary legislation. The following two issues which defendantNos.2 and 3 wanted to be tried as preliminary issues are:
1) Whether the officer who signed the plaint is competent andauthorized to sign the plaint?authorized to sign the plaint?
2) Whether the suit is within limitation?
The first issue sought to be raised is absolutely uncalled for andpurely a technical issue as to whether the officer who signed the plainton behalf of statutory corporation is authorized or not, is a matterbetween the organization and the said officer, the opposite parties tothe litigation cannot seek to non suit on that score. Therefore, refusal bythe trial Court to frame the first of the preliminary issues asked forcannot be faulted.
But, however, the 2[nd] issue which defendant Nos.2 and 3wanted to be framed is relating to limitation. As it is too well known,limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and unless such anadditional issue is framed, perhaps, the parties will not be knowingabout the necessity to lead evidence in that regard. Therefore, refusalto frame such an additional issue is un-understandable.
Hence, the present revision is allowed in part with a direction toframe the following additional issue: ‘whether the suit filed is within limitation or not’ and it shall be tried along with all other issues framedin the suit.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall alsostand closed. No costs.
31.12.2015ska
_______________________________________
JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO