2017- A.P. DIGEST - JUNE3


Order XXVI Rule 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure  for sending expert opinion at fag end of the arguments- delay - dismissed  = suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale - Ex.A.1, in the year 2010. -  filed a written
statement wherein they have denied the execution of the agreement of
sale by disputing the signatures.- I.A. under Order XXVI Rule 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to send Ex.A.1 and the written
statement in original to an handwriting expert for comparison of the
admitted signatures with the disputed signatures on Ex.A.1. - This
application was dismissed by the lower Court on the sole ground of
inordinate delay in filing the application and especially at the stage of
arguments.  - 
their lordships held that   I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that cause of action for his client to file the
application for sending the suit document for experts opinion arose only
on closure of the defendants evidence.  With the denial of execution of
Ex.A.1 in the written statement, cause of action had arisen for the
petitioner to come out with an application for sending the suit document
for experts opinion.  I cannot refrain from observing that it is the laid-
back approach of the parties or their counsel in filing applications
belatedly that has not only been causing prejudice to the interests of the
parties, but also leading to abnormal delays in disposal of cases.  Had the
petitioner been diligent in filing an application immediately after filing of
the written statement or at least before commencement of the trial, his
interests would have been well-served.  The Courts, facing severe pressure
of pendency of cases for long time, cannot be expected to allow
applications of this nature thwarting their efforts to dispose of cases as
quickly as possible.  On the one hand the litigants are critical of abnormal
delays in disposal of cases and on the other hand they file applications
after applications in pending suits, some of them are wholly needless, at
far too belated stages stalling the suit proceedings.  This attitude of the
parties as well as their counsel need to be changed and sooner it happens
it is better for the litigant public. I am of the opinion that the
discretion exercised by the Court below in rejecting the application of the
petitioner cannot be said to be either irrational or improper warranting
interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  The civil revision petition is
accordingly dismissed.

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

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

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS