THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3199 OF 2012 DATED 6th JUNE, 2014 Between:
Madalapally Subbarathnamma … Petitioner and Dr. Y. Padmalatha … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3199 OF 2012 O R D E R:
This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 30-03-2012 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, in I.A. No.1549 of 2011 in O.S. No.98 of 2008. The said IA was filed by the defendant in the suit seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. By the order under revision, the Court below dismissed the IA. Aggrieved, the defendant is before this Court.
2. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner/defendant in her challenge to the order under revision is that Sri V. Lalu Saheb, her learned counsel, was stated to have been heard in the matter though he was actually absent on the said day.
3. Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the cause title is wrongly shown as the petitioner in the IA was not the plaintiff in the suit but the defendant. However, the cause title indicates otherwise. Further, the trial Court recorded as under:
“This petition is coming on this day for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri V. Ramesh Babu, advocate for the plaintiff and (Sri V. Lalu Saheb, Advocate for) (words are overwritten) the defendants were remained exparte (words are struck out), upon perusing the records and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:”
4. The learned counsel appearing for the parties were accordingly permitted to procure the affidavit of Sri Lalu Saheb, Advocate, as to this aspect of the matter. Today, affidavit dated 10-04-2014 of Sri Velavali Lalu Saheb, Advocate, is placed before this Court wherein he stated that he had filed the subject I.A. No.1549 of 2011 in O.S. No.98 of 2008 before the Court below and that the same was posted on 30-03-2012 for arguments but as he was sick, he could not go to the Court on the said day and argue the petition.
5. As the learned counsel for the petitioner in I.A. No.1549 of 2011 in O.S. No.98 of 2008 was absent as can be seen from the aforestated affidavit, the Court below ought not to have recorded that he was heard. Striking out of a part of the order and the overwriting in the portion extracted supra clearly supports the claim of the petitioner/defendant that her counsel was not heard. In effect, the I.A. filed by the petitioner/defendant was dismissed by the Court below without affording her an opportunity of hearing. In that view of the matter, the order dated 30-03-2012 is set aside on this short ground and the matter is remitted to the Court below for consideration afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has examined the case only on this technical ground and the Court below shall independently consider the matter on its own merits.
6. The civil revision petition is allowed. C.R.P.M.P. No.4241 of 2012 shall stand closed in consequence. The Court below shall strive to dispose of the IA expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
SANJAY KUMAR, J 6th JUNE, 2014
Svv