SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(AP) 479

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
Bhamidimarri Vijaya Lakshmi - Petitioner
Versus
M. Uma Lakshmi - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 3673 of 2017
Decided On : 03-11-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Muddu Vijai

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –Order VI Rule 17 – To direct the defendant to vacate the schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff in good condition as was given to the defendant; To direct the defendant to pay Rs.54,000/- (Rupees fifty four thousand only) towards damages for unauthorized use and occupation from January 2011 to September together with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of suit till realization - To direct the defendant to pay future damages at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from October 2011 till delivery of the schedule property – Held, Once the trial is completed and the judgment is reserved, it is wholly undesirable to reopen the case by the Court suo motu. This is a very unhealthy practice, which, apart from giving scope for unscrupulous parties to indulge in vexatious litigation by filing needless applications, as in the present case, also gives rise to speculation, often putting the credibility of the Judge at stake. By resorting to such practice, the Court creates a needless suspicion in the minds of the parties and gives scope for avoidable rumour mongering. In my opinion, till the arguments of both sides in all respects are completed and the Court gets clarity on all aspects from the counsel for both sides, it shall not reserve the case for judgment. Once the judgment is reserved, it must avoid reopening of the case suo motu as far as possible, except in exceptional circumstances. Even in such cases it cannot reopen the case without assigning proper reasons and without notice to both the parties. In all such events, the Court concerned must forthwith send the information to the unit heads who in turn must furnish consolidated data in the proforma, as per the Circular - High Court on administrative side may ensure that Section 33 of CPC read with Rule 142, and Rules 66 and 101 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders are scrupulously followed by issuing appropriate Circulars - Civil revision petition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

This civil revision petition arises out of order dt.21.06.2017 in I.A. No.10 of 2017 in O.S. No.1772 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. The petitioner filed the aforementioned suit for the following reliefs:

Therefore, the plaintiff humbly prays that the Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a decree and judgment in her favour and against the defendant for;

(a) To direct the defendant to vacate the schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff in good condition as was given to the defendant;

(b) To direct the defendant to pay Rs.54,000/- (Rupees fifty four thousand only) towards damages for unauthorized use and occupation from January 2011 to September together with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.

(c) To direct the defendant to pay future damages at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from October 2011 till delivery of the schedule property;

(d) For costs of the suit and

(e) Such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

The petitioner has valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as under:

CF

“(1) For eviction of the defendant, the suit is valued on the basis of 1 year Rental value, i.e., Rs.6,000/- x 12

Rs.72,000-00

Court fee is paid under Sec. 40 of the A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act

 

(2) For damages at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from January 2011 to September 2011 Rs.6,000 x 9 months

Rs.54,000-00

Court fee is paid under section 20 Art 1 (b) & (c) of Sch. I of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.”

 

3. After the case was reserved for judgment, and was subsequently reopened suo motu on the second occasion, the petitioner filed I.A. No.10 of 2017 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for permission to carry out amendments to paragraphs V and VI of the plaint, as under:

“Para No. V Amendemnts.

V. Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.10,60,500/- and a Court fee of Rs.14,992/- is paid thereon under Section 29 and 20 read with Article 1(b) and (c) of the A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act, 1956.

DETAILS OF VALUATION

 

Value

Court Fee

(1) Value of the relief of Ejection

 

 

Market Value of the suit schedule Property Flat No.1 in Ground Floor D.No.4-47-2/1 with a plinth area of 930 Sft., Sft. Cost Rs.1500/- per Sft.

14,25,000

 

3/4th thereof

10,06,500

12,526-00

(2) Damages

54,000

2,466-00

TOTAL

10,60,500

14,992-00

Earlier the petitioner paid C.F. of Rs.5332/- the balance CF of Rs.9,660/- will be paid after allowing of this Application.

Para No. VI Amendments

VI. The plaintiff therefore prays for a decree against the defendants for :

(a) Ejection of the Defendant and their men with all their bag and baggage from the suit schedule Flat and deliver vacant possession of the same to the Plaintiff.

(b) Payment of Damages of Rs.54,000/-

(c) Payment of Mesne profits by the Defendant from the date of their highhanded and unauthorized occupation, either to be ascertained by this Honourable Court in the suit or by appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

(d) Cost of this suit; and

(e) Such other and further relief or reliefs as your Honourable Court may deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein she has denied the ownership of the petitioner by taking the plea that the suit schedule property was purchased by her father-in-law, who is the husband of the petitioner, and kept ostensibly in the latters name. It was further averred that though the said stand was clearly taken in the written statement, no steps were taken for amendment of the plaint till the trial was completed and that













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top