Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari & Others on 13 September, 2024
APHC010454382013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 679/2013
Between:
Smt. Vallurupalli Durga Rani ...APPELLANT
AND
Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari & Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. CH B R P SEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 710/2013
Between:
Vallurupalli Durga Rani ...APPELLANT
AND
Kasaraneni Karuna Kumari And Another and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. CH B R P SEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CMA.Nos.679 & 710 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. The present Appeals are filed aggrieved by the
Common Order dated 03.07.2013 passed in I.A Nos.703 and
704 of 2012 in O.S.88 of 2009 by the XII Additional District
Judge, Krishna District at Vijayawada.
2. The Brief facts so far:
The petitioner/plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.88 of 2009
for recovery of money based on promissory note, which was
dismissed for default on 20.03.2012, subsequently, I.A.Nos.163
and 162 of 2012 were filed to restore the main suit and
I.A.No.1772 of 2009 respectively, contending that the petitioner left
India on 14.04.2012 to attend her ailing daughter, who gave birth to
two twins in Canada. On 23.06.2012 the trail Court allowed the
said applications imposing a condition to file the chief affidavit
of petitioner and all other witnesses on her behalf by
12.07.2012. Further, the trial Court, upon oral and written
submissions made by the petitioner's counsel granted
adjournments on 12.07.2012 & 23.07.2012 and even when the
matter was finally adjourned to 16.10.2012 also the petitioner
failed to comply with the condition imposed thereon. Therefore,
the trial Court dismissed the above said two applications.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.703 and 704 of 2012 to
restore both the I.A.Nos.163 and 162 of 2012 respectively and the
respondents filed Counter on 19.03.2013, even then, the petitioner did
not take any steps to file the chief affidavit. Thereafter, the trail Court
granted five adjournments for enquiry, but still the petitioner has not
moved a little finger to comply with the directions of the Court. Hence,
the trail Court opining that there are no bona fides on the part of the
petitioner and she is unnecessarily dragging the matter without any
progress, dismissed the applications. Questioning the same, the
present CMA is filed
4. Having considered the facts, this Court is of the opinion that filing
of frivolous and unnecessary applications repeatedly without complying,
the orders of the Court appears to be backed by a motive to dragon the
litigation. The parties involved in the litigation are expected to cooperate
for timely disposal of the cases and any attempt to protract the litigation
will be viewed seriously by the Courts.
5. Therefore, this Court, at this length of time, is not inclined
to vary or modify the order of the trial Court as lack of diligence
on part of the petitioner without reflecting appropriate reasons
for the same does not warrant any interference.
6. The C.M.A's are accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous
petitions if any shall stand dismissed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 13.09.2024
IS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CMA.Nos.679 & 710 of 2013
Date: 13.09.2024
IS
