Telangana High Court
CRP/2223/2006 of Smt. Puwala Tripurasundaramma Vs The State of Andhra PRadesh, on 28 December 2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2223 of 2006 BETWEEN Smt. Puwala Tripurasundaramma (died) per LRs. ... PETITIONER AND The State of
INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2223 of 2006
BETWEEN
Smt. Puwala Tripurasundaramma (died) per LRs.
... PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, (LandReforms), Bandar, Krishna District.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M.S. PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR ARBITRATION
The Court made the following:
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:
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2. This revision is directed against the order of the Land ReformsAppellate Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), West Godavari, Eluru, inLRA.No.25 of 2000 dated 05.04.2006 wherein the appeal filed by therespondent/State was allowed ex parte.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions inthe revision petition but confined his submissions only to the observation ofthe lower appellate tribunal in para 9 of the impugned order, which clearlyshows that the request of the petitioner’s counsel for adjournment on theground of ill-health was refused and after hearing the arguments of thelearned counsel for the respondent herein, the appeal was allowed ex parte. Learned senior counsel also points out ground No.9 in support of thisrevision that the request for adjournment was made on behalf of the counselfor the petitioner, as he could appear before the Court, as he had sufferedheart attack. However, the lower appellate tribunal declined to grant anyfurther time and disposed of the appeal ex parte.
4. The respondent/State does not dispute the said grievance as well asthe ill-health of the counsel for the petitioner before the lower appellatetribunal.
5. In these circumstances, the disposal of the appeal without giving anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein would certainly cause prejudiceto the petitioner. Even on the ground of principles of natural justice, theimpugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set asideand the appeal shall stand remitted to the lower appellate tribunal for freshconsideration and shall be decided after hearing both sides. Since the partiesare represented by counsel in this Court itself, notice of the appeal shallstand waived and the parties as well as their respective counsel shall appearbefore the lower appellate tribunal on 04.02.2013 and thereafter, the lowerappellate tribunal shall fix appropriate date for hearing of the matter anddecide the appeal afresh within a period of three (3) months of appearance ofthe parties.
The civil revision petition is allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be noorder as to costs.
December 28, 2012DSK
_____________________VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J