CRP/70/2024 of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs M. Malleeswari on 29 December 2023

1. M. Malleeswari, W/o Muduru Doraswamy Mudali, Hindu, aged about 65 years.Cultivation, residing at D.No. 1-101, Keelagaram village, NarayanavanammMandal, Chittoor District (D.Hr./R-l)Cultivation, residing at D.No. 1-101, Keelagaram village, NarayanavanammMandal, Chittoor District (D.Hr./R-l)

2. M. Shanmugam, S/o M. Sambasiva Mudali, Hindu, aged about 67 yearsCultivation, (J.Dr.No.1/R-2)Cultivation, (J.Dr.No.1/R-2)

3. M. Murali, S/o M. Shanmugam, Hindu, aged about 37 years. Business,(J.Dr.No.2/R-3) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permanent residents[ of] D.No.[ 1-]102, Keelagaram village, Narayanavanam Mandal, Chittoor District(J.Dr.No.2/R-3) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permanent residents[ of] D.No.[ 1-]102, Keelagaram village, Narayanavanam Mandal, Chittoor District

C.R.P.N0.71 OF 2024:

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Common Orderdated 19day of December, 2014 passed in E.A.No.426/2014 etc., inE.A.No.80/2013 in E.P.No.12/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Between:

Andhra Pradesh State FinancialCorporation, representedbyitsBranchManager, K. Purushotham S/o late K.V. Subaramaiah Naidu, Hindu, agedabout 54 years,holdingofficeat Narasimha TheerthamRoad,TirupatiChittoor District.Manager, K. Purushotham S/o late K.V. Subaramaiah Naidu, Hindu, agedabout 54 years,holdingofficeat Narasimha TheerthamRoad,TirupatiChittoor District.

AND

1. M. Malleeswari, W/o Muduru Doraswamy Mudali, Hindu, aged about 65years, Cultivation, residing at D.No.1-101, Keelagaram village,Narayanavanamm Mandal, Chittoor District (D.Hr./R-1)years, Cultivation, residing at D.No.1-101, Keelagaram village,Narayanavanamm Mandal, Chittoor District (D.Hr./R-1)

2. M. Shanmugam, S/o M. Sambasiva Mudali, Hindu, aged about 67 yearsCultivation, (J.Dr.No.1/R-2)Cultivation, (J.Dr.No.1/R-2)

3. M. Murali, S/o M. Shanmugam, Hindu, aged about 37 years. Business,(J.Dr.No.2/R-3) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permanent[residents][ of]D.No. 1-102, Keelagaram village, Narayanavanam Mandal,[Chittoor]District(J.Dr.No.2/R-3) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permanent[residents][ of]D.No. 1-102, Keelagaram village, Narayanavanam Mandal,[Chittoor]District

C.R.P.N0.72 OF 2024:

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Common Orderdated IQ**" day of December, 2014 passed in E.A.No.427/2014 etc., inE.A.No.80/2013 in E.P.No. 12/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Between:

Andhra PradeshStateFinancial Corporation,representedbyitsBranchManager,K. Purushotham S/o late K.V. Subaramaiah Naidu, Hindu, agedabout 54 years,holdingofficeat Narasimha TheerthamRoad,Tirupati,Chittoor District.

AND

...PETITIONER

1. M. Malleeswari, W/o Muduru Doraswamy Mudali, Hindu, aged about 65years. Cultivation, residing at D.No. 1-101, Keelagaram village,Narayanavanamm Mandal, Chittoor District (D.Hr./R-l)years. Cultivation, residing at D.No. 1-101, Keelagaram village,Narayanavanamm Mandal, Chittoor District (D.Hr./R-l)

2. M. Shanmugam, S/o M. Sambasiva Mudali, Hindu, aged about 67 yearsCultivation, (J.Dr.No.1/R-2)Cultivation, (J.Dr.No.1/R-2)

3. M. Murali, S/o M. Shanmugam, Hindu, aged about 37 years. Business,(J.Dr.No.2/R-3) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permanent[residents][ of]D.No. 1-102, Keelagaram village, Narayanavanam Mandal,[Chittoor]District(J.Dr.No.2/R-3) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permanent[residents][ of]D.No. 1-102, Keelagaram village, Narayanavanam Mandal,[Chittoor]District

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.R.SUDHAKAR in all the petitionCounsel for the Respondents:The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY*4^C.R.PuN0s.d31^.d:3l^&oftTOlB)COMMON ORDER:

These Revision Petitions arise out of a common interlocutoryorder dated 19.12.2014 passed in E.A.Nos.425, 426 &[427][ of][ 2014]in E.A.No.80 of 2013 in E.P.No.l2 of 2009 in O.S.No.33 of 1996 onthefile of the Court of the Learned Senior Civil Judge,Puttur,Chittoor District.

2. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

3. ThepetitioneristheAndhraPradeshStateFinanceCorporation, who filed an application in E.A.No.80 of 2013 to raisethe attachment over the E.P schedule property, claiminginterestoverthesame.Theschedulepropertyoriginallybelongstorespondent No.2 and the title deeds of the property were depositedon 17.11.1992in favour of thepetitioner. Suppressingthesaidfacts, O.S.No.33 of 1996 was filed and a decree was passed only todefraud the petitioner. The consequential E.P was filed where underthe schedule property was sought to be put to sale. The petitioner-corporation had filed E.P.No.80 of 2013 under Order XXI Rule 58 ofC.P.C claiming interest in the E.A.Nos.425, 426 and 427 of 2015[ to]reopen,recallandreceivetheadditionaldocumentsCorporation, who filed an application in E.A.No.80 of 2013 to raisethe attachment over the E.P schedule property, claiminginterestoverthesame.Theschedulepropertyoriginallybelongstorespondent No.2 and the title deeds of the property were depositedon 17.11.1992in favour of thepetitioner. Suppressingthesaidfacts, O.S.No.33 of 1996 was filed and a decree was passed only todefraud the petitioner. The consequential E.P was filed where underthe schedule property was sought to be put to sale. The petitioner-corporation had filed E.P.No.80 of 2013 under Order XXI Rule 58 ofC.P.C claiming interest in the E.A.Nos.425, 426 and 427 of 2015[ to]reopen,recallandreceivetheadditionaldocuments

i.e.,Ex.P.l Sanctioned Letter of two loans to R.2 issued by thepetitioner; Ex.P.2 Special terms and conditions to the sanctionofTerm Loan; Ex.P.3 Special terms and conditions to the sanction ofWorking Capital Loan; Ex.P.4 Deed of Hypothecation executed byR.2;Ex.P.5RegisteredSaleDeeddated07.01.1989;Ex.P.6Registered Sale Deed dated 05.08.1981; Ex.P.7 RegisteredSaleDeed dated 05.08.1981;Ex.P.8 Memorandum of Depositoftitledeeds executed by R.2; Ex.P.9 Ledger extract of Term Loan accountof R.l and Ex.P.lO Ledger extract of Working Capital Loan Account.The said applications were dismissed by a common interlocutoryorder dated 19.12.2014. Hence, these Revision Petitions.4.The reasoning of the Trial Court was that the petitioner[had]already filed 10 documents and was cross examined. Thereafter, inthe cross examination the witness of the petitioner admittedthatthey did not obtain any revival letters from the 1"‘ J.Dr to renew thedebt and the present applications were filed stating[that][ the][ revival]letters executed was misplaced and hence sought to be broughtonrecord. The Trial Court disbelieved the misplacementofrevivalletters andthisis contrary to the statement madeinthecrossexamination that there are no revival letters and hence rejected theapplications.

5. Generally, while considering the applications for recall, reopenand to receive the documents, the reasons mentionedin the saidapplications alone will be considered and not with regardto thegenuineness of such documents. The deposition of the petitioner'switness in the cross examination could be a ground to be consideredat the time of final adjudication of the E.A.No.80 of 2013, but not agroundtoreject theapplications.Itisalsoto benotedthatnotwithstandingthe admissionsin the cross examination,itisalways open to a party to explain the reason leadingtothatadmission with supporting documents. In the present applications,this appears to be proposed by the petitioner. The Revivallettersand other documents sought to be marked in evidence would onlyhelpin comprehensive adjudication of the dispute pertainingtoimmovable property,insteadof rejecting the applicationof thepetitioner,if the TrialCourt hadadmittedthe documentsandproceeded with further enquiry, the //5 would have been adjudicatedby now.and to receive the documents, the reasons mentionedin the saidapplications alone will be considered and not with regardto thegenuineness of such documents. The deposition of the petitioner'switness in the cross examination could be a ground to be consideredat the time of final adjudication of the E.A.No.80 of 2013, but not agroundtoreject theapplications.Itisalsoto benotedthatnotwithstandingthe admissionsin the cross examination,itisalways open to a party to explain the reason leadingtothatadmission with supporting documents. In the present applications,this appears to be proposed by the petitioner. The Revivallettersand other documents sought to be marked in evidence would onlyhelpin comprehensive adjudication of the dispute pertainingtoimmovable property,insteadof rejecting the applicationof thepetitioner,if the TrialCourt hadadmittedthe documentsandproceeded with further enquiry, the //5 would have been adjudicatedby now.

6. ThisCourthavingconsiderationtotheAffidavitfiledinsupport of the above applications deems it appropriate[to][ set][ aside]theorderoftheTrialCourtandallowtheCivilRevisionApplications.

To,

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed by settingaside the common interlocutory order dated 19.12.2014 passedinE.A.Nos.425,426 & 427of 2014inE.A.IMo.80of2013inE.P.No.12 of 2009 in O.S.No.33 of 1996 on the file of the Court ofthe Learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District. There shallbe no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications,ifany.shall stand closed.

Sd/- S. SRINIVASA PRASADASSISTANT REGISTRAR02^SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District.2. One CC to Sri G.R.Sudhakar Advocate [OPUCl.3. Three CD Copies.AL

HIGH COURT

DATED: 29/12/2023

COMMON ORDER

CRP.Nos.70, 71,72 of 2024

; O-7Og01 MAY MCo,

CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS ARE ALLOWEDWITHOUT COSTS

Sf^