B Padmaja vs K.V.L.Jayasimha
2022 Latest Caselaw 1885 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2487 of 2014

ORDER :

1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated

30.04.2013 in I.A.No.601 of 2013 in O.S.No.833 of 2012 on the

file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (FTC),

Hyderabad. The revision petitioner is the defendant before the trial

Court.

2. The brief order of the trial Court disclose that I.A.No.601 of

2013 was filed by the defendant under Order XII Rules 1 and 6

r/w. Section 151 of CPC, praying the Court to direct the plaintiff to

receive the key of the first floor allotted to him vide Memorandum

of Understanding, dated 09.06.2006 (as tenant i.e. Indian Overseas

Bank vacated the same on 12.10.2012 and handed over the key to

the defendant) from the defendant. Pending the said I.A., a Memo

was filed by the plaintiff that he received the key of the first floor

portion through the Court and in the said Memo, he further

undertook to get the property registered in his name within 45

days. While taking on record the said Memo, the trial Court

GAC, J CRP.No.2487 of 2014

directed the defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of

plaintiff within 45 days.

3. Heard both sides and perused the record.

4. It is the contention of the revision petitioner/defendant that

she was not a party to the Memo which was filed by the plaintiff

before the trial Court and the said Memo was not served on her. It

is contended that in the absence of the defendant/revision

petitioner, the Court has passed the order basing on the Memo filed

by the plaintiff/respondent. It is also contended by the revision

petitioner that the order passed by the trial Court is illegal and

arbitrary, as the same was not passed basing on the admissions of

the parties, subsequent to filing of the Memo. Accordingly, prayed

to set aside the impugned order, dated 30.04.2013.

5. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for

respondent/plaintiff that the parties are none other than wife and

husband, who subsequently got divorced by way of mutual consent

in the year 2007 from Lok Adalat and since a Decade, they were

living apart. It is contended that originally the properties belong to

the respondent/plaintiff and the premises was let out on lease to

GAC, J CRP.No.2487 of 2014

Indian Overseas Bank, and at the time of vacating the premises, the

Bank authorities have handed over the keys of the first floor

portion of the building to the revision petitioner/defendant, and

since then, the keys are in the custody of the defendant, for which,

he was constrained to file I.A.No.601 of 2013 and in view of the

compromise talks, the defendant has accepted to hand over the key

and register the property in the name of the plaintiff, for which, a

Memo was filed and the trial Court has passed order basing on the

said Memo. Thus, there is no irregularity in the order passed by

the trial Court and accordingly prayed to dismiss the revision

petition.

6. In this case, it is evident that there are two other suits

between the same parties and there is a specific direction by this

Court, to club all the three suits and conduct trial in one suit.

As per the said directions, the trial Court commenced the trial and

plaintiff's side evidence was closed and the suits are coming up for

the evidence of defendant.

7. Order XII Rules 1 and 6 read as under :

"1. Notice of admission of case :-

GAC, J CRP.No.2487 of 2014

Any party to a suit may give notice, by his pleading, or otherwise in writing, that he admits the truth of the whole or any part of the case of any other party.

6. Judgment on admissions :-

(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such Order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions."

8. As per the above said provisions, the Court has to pass a

judgment or order basing on the admissions or pleadings of the

parties. In the present case, the order disclose that a Memo filed

by the plaintiff was taken on record and the defendant was directed

to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff within 45 days. The

said I.A. is not yet disposed of.

9. At this point of time, the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner stated that on 08.04.2022, I.A.No.601 of 2013 in

O.S.No.833 of 2012 was withdrawn. In view of withdrawal of the

I.A., nothing remains in the CRP for adjudication on merits.

GAC, J CRP.No.2487 of 2014

More over, the learned trial Judge has erred in not passing

judgment or order when the I.A. is filed under Order 12 Rules 1

and 6 of CPC praying the Court to record the admissions.

10. Therefore, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside

the impugned order dated 30.04.2013. Since the suit is of the year

2012, the trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S.No.833 of 2012

along with the other connected suits as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate

with the trial Court for early disposal of the suits as directed above.

No order as to costs.

11. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 13.04.2022

N.B :

Issue C.C. in two days.

(b/o) ajr