HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CRP.No.2884 of 2014 % 19.09.2014 Between:
# Ch.Shankar Reddy, S/o Chilumula Chenna Reddy . Petitioner And:
$ Y.Ram Reddy, S/o Muthi Reddy . Respondent < Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ravindra Bharati ^ Counsel for the Respondent: ---
? Cases Referred:
NIL HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CRP.No.2884 of 2014 Date:19.09.2014 Between:
Ch.Shankar Reddy, S/o Chilumula Chenna Reddy . Petitioner And:
Y.Ram Reddy, S/o Muthi Reddy . Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ravindra Bharati Counsel for the respondent: ----
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by non- consideration of I.A(SR).No.2085 of 2014 in O.S.No.2086 of 2013 filed by the petitioner, under Order XIII Rule 9 (1) proviso-(a)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for return of the original promissory note along with receipt marked as Ex.A-1 in the above- mentioned suit, by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar, to enable him to file the same in C.C.No.122 of 2014 on the file of the learned X Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner averred that he filed the above- mentioned suit for recovery of money based on the promissory note (he wrongfully described himself as defendant in the cause title of this Civil Revision Petition). He has filed the above-mentioned I.A. under Order XIII Rule 9(1) proviso-(a)(i) of C.P.C., for an order to return the original promissory note along with the receipt marked as Ex.A-1, by permitting him to substitute the same with the certified copy, for the purpose of filing the same in a pending criminal case against the respondent.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said I.A. was filed on 15.07.2014, the lower Court has not assigned number to it and passed any order thereon.
At the hearing, Sri Ravindra Bharati, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the proviso to Rule 9 of Order XIII of C.P.C. and submitted that his client has a right to take return of the original document by substituting the same with the certified copy.
In my opinion, the lower Court is not justified in keeping the I.A. filed by the petitioner without numbering for more than two months.
It is trite that undue delays in disposal of small applications such as the present one by the Courts below causes immense hardship to the litigants. The Courts must show the required sensitivity to the grievances of the litigants to avoid needless sufferance and strain due to unjustified delays in considering the applications. Failure to number I.A., if what the petitioner alleged is true, for more than two months reflects on the none too happy approach of the lower Court. If the Courts do not respond to the just cause of the litigants, it will lead to the society losing faith in the justice dispensation system itself. Such a trend leads to anarchy in the society. The Courts would do well to be alive to this potential danger and take corrective steps to alleviate sufferance of the litigant public by always acting with due diligence.
With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the direction to the lower Court to forthwith number the I.A. and dispose of the same on merits within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP.No.3971 of 2014 stands disposed of as infructuous.
19thSeptember, 2014 Note:
LR copies to be marked. B/o
DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY