Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vallabhaneni Venkateswara Rao vs Yarlagadda Subhashini on 8 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2621 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. The petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to direct the
First Appellate Court viz., XI Additional District Judge's Court,
Krishna District, Gudivada, to hear and dispose of the interlocutory
application bearing I.A.No.855 of 2018 filed by them for restoration of
the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.38 of 2013, as expeditiously as possible.
3. The facts, in a nutshell, are as under: A suit in O.S.No.336 of
2007 for declaration and perpetual injunction was preferred by the
petitioners herein on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge's
Court (Fast Track Court), Gudivada. The respondents herein were
the defendants in the said suit. The suit came to be rejected by the
trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal in
A.S.No.38 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge's
Court, Krishna District, Gudivada. The said appeal came to be
dismissed as withdrawn on 06.11.2017, based on a memo filed by
the counsel on record for the petitioners.
GN,J
4. It is the case of the petitioners that no instructions for
withdrawal were given to the counsel and that when they came to
know about the withdrawal of the appeal, they immediately
approached this Court by way of a Second Appeal in S.A.No.19 of
2018. This Court, upon appreciating the contention of fraud
canvassed by the appellants therein/petitioners herein, has been
pleased to order, vide Judgment dated 05.01.2018, as under,:
"The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and
perpetual injunction have come up with the above
second appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of their
appeal on a memo filed by their counsel allegedly
without instructions from them.
2. Heard Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellants.
3. The regular first appeal A.S.No.38 of 2013
filed by the appellants, has come to be dismissed on the
ground that the appellants filed a memo seeking
dismissal of the appeal as not pressed. According to the
appellants, they never wanted the appeal to be
withdrawn and that a fraud has been played.
4. If that is so, the appropriate course of
action open to the appellants is to move the Appellate
Court for setting aside the judgment dated 06-11-2017,
as the questions raised herein are questions of fact to
be first settled by the First Appellate Court.
GN,J
5. Therefore, with the liberty to the appellants
to move the First Appellate Court, the second appeal is
dismissed. The interlocutory applications, if any,
pending in this second appeal shall stand closed. No
costs."
5. It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of the liberty
granted by this Court, they preferred I.A.No.855 of 2018 before the
First Appellate Court way back in 2018, seeking restoration of the
appeal, and despite the passage of more than six years, the said
interlocutory application is not yet disposed of and that the delay on
the part of the First Appellate Court in disposing of the said
interlocutory application is unjustified and is causing hardship to the
petitioners.
6. A copy of I.A.No.855 of 2018 preferred under Order 41 Rule
19 of C.P.C. is also produced along with the revision papers at Page
No.5.
7. There is substance in the case of the petitioners. The
petitioners have pleaded fraud having been played. It is pertinent to
note that if fraud has really been practiced, it is not merely on a
litigant but also on the Court. In the event of such allegations, it is
imperative and incumbent on the justice dispensation system to act
with utmost alacrity, and lack of diligence in such matters is
GN,J
impermissible. If the allegations are proven to be true, it is not merely
the litigant, who would be an affected party, but it is also the
institution of justice dispensation system, which would be an affected
party, and if the same is proven, severe consequences would also
flow. It is shocking to find that the First Appellate Court has turned a
blind eye to all these implications. Whether fraud is proved or not,
whenever an allegation of fraud is made and, that too, when there is
a hint that one of the affected parties is the Court itself, it is the
bounden duty of the concerned Court to act with extreme urgency,
as it can have a great impact on the minds of the public and the
litigants and lower the standing of the institution in the eyes of the
public and the litigants.
8. In that view of the matter, notice to the respondents is
dispensed with and the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall
be a direction to the Court of the XI Additional District Judge, Krishna
District, Gudivada, to expeditiously hear and dispose of I.A.No.855 of
2018 preferred in A.S.No.38 of 2013. Hearing and disposal of the
I.A. shall be after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties
and at any rate, within an outer limit of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
GN,J
9. Copy of this order be forthwith forwarded to the concerned
Court.
10. The civil revision petition stands ordered accordingly. As a
sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
Dt: 08.11.2024
IBL
GN,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2621 of 2024
Date: 08.11.2024
IBL
