Telangana High Court
CRP/6202/2010 of Alluri Sri Gowri, Vs Vadlamudi Ravindra Babu, on 31 December 2010
A . GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.M.P.No.705 of 2008 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6202 OF 2010 DATE:31-12-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6202 OF 2010 BETWEEN Alluri Sri Gowri …Petitioner AND Vadlamudi Ravindra Babu & another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
C.R.P.M.P.No.705 of 2008ANDCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6202 OF 2010
DATE:31-12-2010
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6202 OF 2010
BETWEEN
Alluri Sri Gowri
AND
…Petitioner
Vadlamudi Ravindra Babu & another
…Respondents
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
C.R.P.M.P.No.705 of 2008ANDCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6202 OF 2010
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:
The main revision is filed seeking to revise the orders of thePrincipal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, passed in G.L.No.2865 of2007 in E.P.No.160 of 2006 in O.S.No.611 of 1999, dated 5.6.2007whereby the application filed by the petitioner-claim petitioner todeclare that he is the absolute owner of the petition scheduleproperty has been rejected.
The contents of the initial claim petition would go to showthat it is an application filed under Order 21 Rule 58(1) (a) CPCand when the same was returned with an objection as to how thepetition was maintainable under order 21 Rule 58 CPC as it wasfiled subsequent to conducting the sale, the same was re-presented by altering the provision of law converting the same intoan application under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. The lower Courtrejected the said application stating that the application is filedonly to protract the matter and no grounds to entertain thepetition. Questioning the same the revision is filed.
Since there is a delay in filing the revision, CRP.MP.No.705of 2008 has been filed to condone the delay of 113 days in filingthe revision. For the reasons explained in the accompanyingaffidavit, the delay in filing the revision is condoned and theCRP.MP. is ordered.
The revision itself is filed against the rejection of petitionfiled under order 21 Rule 90 CPC. In effect, it is an order passedunder Order 21 Rule 92 CPC, against which, an appeal lies to theSenior Civil Judge as per Order 43 Rule 1(j) CPC and therefore, the present revision cannot be entertained.
The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
_______________
A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
DECEMBER 31, 2010
Tsr.