M/s Rankids Impex Private Ltd vs M/s Amruthal and Company

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 2688 AND 2689 OF 2019 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2688 OF 2019 Petition under Article 227 of the Constituiion of lndia, against the Order dated.04.11.20'19 passed in 1.A.No.1327 of 2019 in 1.A.No.1860 of 20'11 in O.S.No.7 of 2OO2 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, at Nizamabad.
Between:
M/s Rankids lmpex Private Ltd, New Delhi, Represented by its Managing Director, Smt. Ranjana Teckchandani, W/o Teckchandani, Aged 67 Years, represented through her authorized Signatory KishuTeckchandani, S/o. late H.K. Teckchandani, Aged 72 Years, Occ.Business, Fl/o. Flat No.414, Tower No. 11, Mount Kailash Apartment DDA MS Flats, East of Kailash New Delhi.
...Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant AND M/s Amruthal and Company, Merchants and commission agents, 17 Shradhanand Gunj, Nizamabad through its partner Amruthlal, S/o. Late. Ramji, 71 Years, Fi/o. Sharadhanand Gan (Ganji), Nizamabad - 506 002.
...RespondenURespondenUPlai ntiff lA NO: 1 OF 20t19 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.s.No. o7 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, at Nizamabad in the interest of justice.
Gounsel for the Petitioner: M/s INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. DURGA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2689 OF 2019 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated. 04.11 2019 passed in 1.A.No.1326 of 2019 in 1.A.No.953 of 2O12 in O.S.No.7 ol 2OO2 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, at Nizamabad.
Between:
M/s Rankids lmpex Private Ltd, New Delhi, Represented by its Managing Director, Smt. Ranlana Teckchandani, W/o- Teckchandani, Aged 67 Years, represented through her authorized Signatory KishuTeckcha nda ni, S/o. late H.K. Teckchandani, Aged 72 Years, Occ.Business, Rlio. Flat No.414, Tower No. '1 1, tVlount Kailash Apartment DDA MS Flats, East of Kailash New Delhi.
...Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant AND M/s Amruthal and Company, Merchants and commission agents, 17 Shradhanand Gunj, Nizamabad through its partner Amruthlal, S/o. Late. Ramli, 71 Years, R/o. Sharadhanand Gan (Gan.ii), Nizamabad - 506 002.
... Responde nURespondenUPlai ntiff lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 7 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, at Nizamabad in the interest of justice.
Gounsel for the Petitioner: M/s INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for'the Respondent: SRI K. DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I{ON' I}I,t,, SRI .IUSTICE A.SANTHoSH REDDY C.R.l'.Nos.2688 and 26t19 of 2019 Civil Revision Petition No.2688 of 2019 is directcd against the order, dated 04. I 1.2019, passed in I.A,No. 1327 ol- 2017 in ol20ll LA.No. 1860 in O.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Nizamabad.
Civil Revision Petition No.2689 of 2019 is directed asainst the in ol order, dated 04.11.2019, passed I.A.No.l326 2017 in I.A.No.953 ol 2012 in O.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the Prir.rcipal District Judge at Nizamabad.
2.
Heard the leamed counsel lor the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material record.
3. Inasmuch as the issues arising for consideration in both revisions are one and the same, the common order is being passed.

COMMON ORDER:

The revision petitioner is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money of Rs.63,79,95 11. The revision petitioner fi1ed I.A.No.953 of 2012 to set aside the ex parte decree and another I.A.No.l860 of 2011 for staying execution pctition fl lerl urrcler Order 2l Rule 26 C.P.C. and both thc applications arc pending be tbre the Court below. I.A.No. 1860 of 201 I was alloued in lavour olthe revision petitioner on 09.04.2012 staying the execution o1'dccree urltil lufther orders. When the said application came-up ltrr heirring on 02.08.201 9, the same was dismisscd due to absence o1'both the parties and their counsel. Then I.A.No. 1326 of 2019 u'as llled to condone the delay ol(28) days in filing the petition for restoration o1'1.A.No.953 of 2012 and I.A.No.l327 of 2019 was filed to condone the delay of (28) days in filing the petition for restoration of I.A.No.1860 of 201 I to its original number. Thc trial Couft after hearing both the counsel and after perusing thc material on record dismissed both I.A.No.l326 and 1327 of 2019, vide comnron order, dated 04.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions are filed.

A perusal of the common order of the trial Court discloses that O.S.No.7 of 2002 came-up for trial, the revision petitioneridefejndant was set ex parte on 20.11.2006 and ex parte decree was passed on 05.02.2007 . Execution Petition was filed to transfer the decree to Dethi and accordingly, it was transferred. The revision petitioner/defendant filed a petition before this Court to review the order. The order dated 11.07.2004 in I.A.No.2l of 2003 is set aside and the I.A. was dismisseci without costs. [.A.No.i859 ol20 I i which was tiled fbr condonation of delay of (1628) days was allowed on payment of costs. When the petition under Order 9 Rule l3 C.p.C. was posted for counter, meanwhile, SLP was preferred. The order in CRP.No.6l50 of 2014 was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal. I.A.No. I 859 of 201 I was allowed by granting stay in CRP.No. l8l7 ol 2012 and I.A.No.953 of 2012 was srayed.

I.A.No. 1860 of 20ll was filed for stay of execution proceedings pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2007 in O.S.No.7 ol 2002 including the proceedings in EP.No.267 of 2007. The matter was coming up for arguments. Even after giving ample opportunity, none of the parties have evinced any interest and as such, tfre petition was dismissed on 02.08.2019 for non-compliance of conditional order dated 12.07.20t9.

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that there was delay of (28) days in filing the applications and the trial Court has not properly appreciated the reasons for delay for non-appearance before the Court. Inspite of reasonable grounds and showing sufficient cause, the trial Court has failed to consider the request of the I

petitioner and piissed the irnpugned order. In support of his contentions, he rclied on the judgments of Ilon'ble Apex Court in v.

G.P.Srivastava R.K.Raizadal and A.Murgugesan v.Jamuna Ran i2.

Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submit that the revision petitioner/defendant failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of (28) days and the suit was filed for recovery ol money way back in the year 2002 and intentionally, the revision petitioner is not cooperating for disposal of the matter and dragging the proceedings on one or other pretext without allowing the respondent/plaintilf to reap the fruits of the decree.

8. lt appears from the averments of the petitions filed, these two applications in I.A.No.1326 of 2019 and I.A.No. ll27 of 2019 were filed to condone the delay of (28) days to restore LA.No.60 of 2011 and I"A.No.953 of 2012 to their original numbers. It appears that the revision petitioner/defendant is a senior citizen and he and his wife are suffering from old age ailments. As such, he could not contact his I (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 54

2 12019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 803

ccunscl. r\s t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document