K. M. Bheemalinga Pillaim v. C. Raja Bhaskar
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Feb 2011
- Bench
- B PRAKASH RAO
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 8 r. 9; O. 38 r. 1
Judgment
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos. 2647 and 3312 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since these two Revisions Petitions arose between the same parties and in respect of the same proceedings, they are taken up together for disposal. The petitioner, who is the defendant, filed these two Revision Petitions, by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the orders passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dismissing the application in I.A.No.95 of 2008, dated 02-04-2008 filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. and allowing the application in I.A.No.635 of 2007, dated 04-07-2008 filed under Order 38 Rule 1 and Section 151 of C.P.C. Having heard the counsel and on perusal of the material, especially without going into merits of the case and other objections set forth on either side, it is seen that I.A.No.95 of 2008 is only requesting permission to file additional counter.
Whereas the other application in I.A.No.635 of 2007 was filed seeking to pass order of arrest against the respondent for the sake of furnishing proper security for his appearance. In fact, in C.R.P.No.2647 of 2008, filed as against the order in I.A.No.95 of 2008, dated 02-04-2008, this Court at interlocutory passed orders 03-07-2008 C.R.P.M.P.No.3470 of 2008 to the effect that
If the plaintiff i.e., petitioner in I.A.No.635 of 2007, wants for inquiry with regard to disposal of I.A.No.635 of 2007, the Court below may make enquiry and pass appropriate orders, after taking into consideration the additional counter affidavit filed by the petitioner herein i.e., defendant in the suit O.S.No.188 of 2007, otherwise, there shall be stay of all further proceedings.
This fact of passing the order by this Court was brought to the notice of the Court below by filing a memo on 03-07-2008. The Court below, instead of waiting for the copy of the order to be received, passed the order in I.A.No.635 of 2007 stating that he has waited for the copy to be filed till 4-30 PM and no such copy is filed.
Operative part
However, it is to be borne in mind that as and when an intimation is given regarding the orders being passed by the higher Courts, certainly the Courts should give respect to the same and wait till the copy of the order is served or at least filed. Unless and until such orders are verified, the Court should not try to proceed in much contrary. In the circumstances and especially with a view to have a more comprehensive approach to the questions involved, it is quite desirable that the matter requires fresh consideration especially in I.A.No.635 of 2007. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The order, dated 02-04-2008 in I.A.No.95 of 2008 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.95 of 2008 stands allowed and the petitioner is permitted to file additional counter. However, the order, dated 04-07-2008 in I.A.No.635 of 2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh disposal on merits, in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both sides. The Court below shall dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Date: 24-02-2011 YCR _______________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 8 r. 9; O. 38 r. 1.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 24 Feb 2011. The bench was B PRAKASH RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.