Telangana High Court
CRP/6544/2012 of Venkataiah Vs Laxmidevamma on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6544 2012 December 31, 2012 Between: Venkataiah, S/o.Late Ramaiah And others … Petitioners/ Respondents/ Defendants AND Laxmidevamma, W/o.Late Rangappa And others … Respondents/ Petitioners/ Plaintiffs THE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6544 2012
December 31, 2012
Between:
Venkataiah, S/o.Late Ramaiah And others
AND
… Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants
Laxmidevamma, W/o.Late Rangappa And others … Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6544 of 2012
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 civil revision petition is failed against docket order dated04.12.2012 passed in I.A. No.185 of 2011 (I.A) in O.S.No.20 of 2010on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet.
The petitioners herein are the respondents in the I.A. anddefendants in the suit whereas the respondents herein are thePetitioners in the I.A. and plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience sake, Irefer the parties as they are arrayed in the suit.
The I.A. was filed by the plaintiffs under Order IX Rule 9 readwith Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to setaside the order dated 30..8.2011 passed dismissing the suit and torestore the same.
The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit was posted on 30.8.2011for trial. Then they intended to file a petition seeking certainamendments. But at that time necessary petition was not preparedwhereas when the petition could be prepared, the suit was called bythe Court below and was dismissed. According to the defendants, theplaintiffs involved in prolonging the matter. On the other hand thisCourt in an earlier proceedings gave direction to dispose of the suit asexpeditiously as possible. Hence there are no merits in the I.A.
The Court below accepted the plea of the plaintiffs and allowedthe I.A. on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by the plaintiffs tothe defendants on or before 11.12.2012, giving a direction that on thatday the plaintiffs should get ready with the trial of the suit also.
As borne out by the record in fact earlier the defendants were sete x parte in the suit against which they approached the High Courtwhereas this Court allowed the plea of the defendants but gavedirection for the disposal of the suit as early as possible. The orderpassed is a reasoned one. Taking into consideration all the relevantcircumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the orderpassed by the Court below.
The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Miscellaneouspetitions pending if any shall stand closed.
___________________________________
(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)