Partition Suit - Posted for Judgment - suit filed in the year 2006 - Plaintiff took several adjournments with out getting ready for submitting arguments - Petition to implead some persons at the stage of argument was dismissed - arguments submitted - when the matter was posted for judgment - third party - sons of exparte defendant filed an application in the year 2014 for impleadment - opposed by Def.No.9 a bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property but not by plaintiff and by other defendants - Trial court dismissed - Their Lordships held that since there was no explanation how they come about suit proceedings after the lapse of several years - lacks bonafides and as such the trial court rightly dismissed the same. - 2015 Telangana & A.P.msklawreports


LAW : - Or.1, Rule 10 C.P.C.
SUB :- Impleading Petition. 
I.A.No.1067 of 2014
moved in O.S.No.1546 of 2006 seeking impleadment as Defendant No.22   
to the suit.=  has not been opposed by the plaintiffs, nor the other defendants did oppose that except D 9.  the trial court dismissed the petition 
Held :-
 The suit, as it is, was instituted in the year 2006.  
It appears that the matter was coming up for Judgment, literally.  
When the case was posted for final arguments,
it appears that the plaintiffs have taken several adjournments and
submitted their arguments at long last. 
When the matter was posted for
Judgment, the plaintiffs have filed an interlocutory application for
impleading some other third-parties as parties to the suit.  That
Application was also dismissed by the Court.  
Thereafter, the present
application in I.A.No.1067 of 2014 is filed. 
 It is, therefore, contended by
defendant 9 that there are no bona fides behind the said Application and
it is only intended to protract and prolong the issue, so that it will not
get decided one way or the other.
        In the absence of any reasonably-believable explanation as to how
all of a sudden the petitioner herein has gained knowledge about the
pendency of a civil suit, which came to be instituted in the year 2006,
and all other developments that have taken therein, the assertion of
defendant 9 that the present Application lacks bona fides gained
strength.  
When the petitioner could assert that no summons were
served during the lifetime of his father and that service was effected
through substituted service, it will not be unreasonable to presume that
the petitioner is in the know of the procedure that is normally adopted
by the civil Court.  
If he is that much aware, as is sought to be made out
from the contents of para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of
I.A.No.1067 of 2014, extracted supra, the petitioner owes a clear
obligation to explain to the Court as to how he has come to know of all
these developments all of a sudden and moved an Application only in
January, 2014.
        I do not find any infirmity, either legal or otherwise, in exercise
of jurisdiction carried out by the Court below in dismissing I.A.No.1067
of 2014, not only because the said Application is a belated one, but it
clearly lacks any bona fides.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)