Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Battu Devanand, J.
Pelluri. Venkata Hanumantha Krishna Murthy Sharma - Appellants
Vs.
Pelluri. Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1217 of 2020
Decided On : 07-12-2020
For the Appellant :S. Satyanarayana Moorthy, Advocate
Senior citizens have a right to expeditious disposal of their cases to enable them to enjoy the fruits of litigation during their lifetime.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 41 RULE 27 - SENIOR CITIZENS - PRIORITY DISPOSAL OF CASES - Petitioners, senior citizens, filed a suit in 2002, decreed in 2010. Interlocutory application filed in 2011 pending for 9 years. Court directed expeditious disposal within 2 months.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, senior citizens, filed a suit in 2002, decreed in 2010. Interlocutory application filed in 2011 pending for 9 years.
Finding of the Court:
Court observed that pendency of cases relating to senior citizens is not decreasing. Courts have a duty to give priority for early disposal of cases of senior citizens to enable them to enjoy the fruits of litigation during their lifetime. Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the court should direct expeditious disposal of the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners, who are senior citizens.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the National Policy for Older Persons and various circulars issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana emphasizing the need for priority disposal of cases relating to senior citizens. The court also noted that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court directed the II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada to dispose of the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
ORDER :
Battu Devanand, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking intervention of this Court for not disposing the I.A. No. 565 of 2011 in O.S. No. 30 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada.
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S. No. 30 of 2002.
3. Considering the nature of the order going to be passed, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
4. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 30 of 2002 seeking decree in favour of them and against the defendant Nos. 4 and 9 for the following reliefs:-
(a) That the sale deed, dated 18.03.2002 executed by 4th defendant in favour of 9th defendant in relation to the schedule property does not bind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 7 after the life time of the 4th defendant as she is entitled to collect rents from it and live and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 4 and 9 for disturbing the status quo by inducting the 9th defendant into the schedule house as purchase of the same under the above sale deed, dated 18.03.2002;
(b) for partition of the plaint schedule house by passing a preliminary decree into six equal shares and allot two such shares to the plaintiffs;
(c) for past profits from the 9th defendant since 04.06.2003 in a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month x 14 = Rs. 28,000/- and from the 8th defendant at Rs. 900/- per month x 14 = Rs. 12,600/-;
(d) for a direction for ascertainment of mesne profit on those portions from the date of suit till date of realization from the defendants 8 to 9 respectively.
5. The Court below decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners by its decree and judgment, dated 16.08.2010. Against the same, 9th respondent herein filed an appeal in A.S. No. 893 of 2020 before this High Court which is pending for adjudication. As there is no stay of the operation of the judgment, dated 16.08.2010 of the Court below in appeal, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 565 of 2011 before the II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining of past mesne profits as mentioned in the preliminary decree, dated 16.08.2010.
6. Heard Sri S. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record.
7. Learned counsel submits that since 2011 the said I.A. No. 565 of 2011 was kept pending and getting adjourned and the respondents taking advantage of the delay, enjoying the property since 2002. Whereas the petitioners, who are aged 80 years and 72 years respectively, who are putting indifferent health now, are suffering a lot because of the delay of 9 years in disposing I.A. No. 565 of 2011 with a fond hope that they will enjoy the fruits of the decree during their life time, they approached this Court by filing this Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel further submits that as the petitioners are senior citizens, speedy disposal of the I.A. No. 565 of 2011 is necessary. He also submits that if this Court orders for speedy disposal, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents.
8. As seen from the record, admittedly, the suit in O.S. No. 30 of 2002 filed by the petitioners was decreed by the Court below by its decree and judgment, dated 16.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the 9th respondent preferred an appeal before this Court in A.S. No. 893 of 2010 and it is pending for adjudication. As there is no stay of the operation of the decree and judgment of the Court below in appeal, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 565 of 2011 before the Court below and it is pending since 2011.
9. As per the age mentioned in the cause title of this Civil Revision Petition and as per the submissions made by the learned counsel, the age of the 1st petitioner is 80 years and the age of the 2nd petitioner is 72 years. Admittedly, they are the senior citizens. They approached this Court with a fond hope that they will enjoy the fruits
