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

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

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
Read more

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

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

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

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. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under 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. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more