The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.307 of 2014
Dated 04.09.2014
Between:
S.Dhananjaya Rao and 2 others …Petitioners/defendants And Smt.V.Bhramaramba …Respondent/plaintiff Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.Parsa Anantha Nageswara Rao for Mr.B.Chandrasen Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Mr.Botla Venkateswara Rao The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against Order, dated 31-10-2013, in IA.No.688 of 2013 in IA.No.468 of 2013 in OS.No.135 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
For convenience, the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
The plaintiff (Respondent No.1 herein) has filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction against the defendants (petitioners and respondent No.2 herein). After the arguments on the plaintiff’s side were completed and the case was posted for arguments of the defendants, defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed IA.No.468 of 2013 for summoning one P.Ravinder Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, as court witness and also to file judgment and decree in OS.2860 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. This application was dismissed by the lower Court.
A perusal of the order of the lower Court shows that the evidence on the plaintiff’s side was closed on 04-07-2012; that the matter underwent several adjournments from 11-07-2012 till 10-04- 2013, on which date, the evidence on the defendants’ side was closed and the case was posted for arguments to 02-05-2013; that on 02-05-2013, defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed an application seeking to reopen the matter and to recall DW.3; that the said application was allowed on 12-06-2013; that on 26-06-2013, DW.3 was cross-examined and the case was adjourned to 03-07-2013, on which date the defendants’ side evidence was closed; that the case was, thereafter, posted to 17-07-2013, on which date, the arguments on the plaintiff’s side were partly heard; and that on 31-07-2013, the plaintiff’s side arguments were closed and the case was adjourned to 07-08-2013 for hearing the arguments of the defendants. On the adjourned date, the defendants were not ready and the case was again adjourned to 21-08-2013 conditionally.
Even on 21-08-2013, the defendants were not ready and the case was again adjourned to 28-08-2013 on costs. Based on the above facts, the lower Court observed that the defendants were intentionally dragging on the proceedings and that there are no bona fides on their part in filing IA.No.468 of 2013.
Having considered the conduct of the defendants, I find every justification in the conclusion drawn by the lower Court that they filed the aforesaid application with the sole intention of dragging on the suit. As the defendants’ conduct is not bona fide, I do not find any reason to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.394 of 2014, filed for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 4th September, 2014
LUR