Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 531 (AP)

Achamma (since died) by L. Rs. v. D. Venkatappa

2006-04-19

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2006
ORDER This civil revision petition is filed against the docket order, dated 4-7 -2005, passed by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda in I.A. No.417 of 2003 in O.S. No.239 of 2000. 2. The respondents filed the suit for partition against one Achamma, the sole defendant in the suit. They filed I.A. No.417 of 2003 to bring the petitioners herein as legal representatives of the deceased Achamma. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., they pleaded that Achamma died on 28-3-2003 and that except the petitioners herein, there are no other legal representatives of late Achamma. The petitioners filed counter-affidavit stating that the husband of Achamma and her daughter are very much alive. It was also pleaded that the application was filed long after the death of Achamma, without filing an application to set aside the abatement. The trial Court ordered the I.A. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. While the respondents pleaded that the sole defendant in the suit died on 28-3-2003, in their counter-affidavit the petitioners herein stated that she died on 28-3-2002. The application to bring the petitioners herein on record as legal representatives was filed on 26-2-2003. A specific objection was raised that the suit was abated and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have been filed. 5. Further, the respondents pleaded that the husband of Achamma by name Nagappa died long ago and Nagamma, daughter of Nagappa through his first wife, also died. The petitioners herein stated in their counter affidavit that both the said persons are alive. 6. When such was the controversy between the parties as regards the date of death of the sole defendant as well as the legal representatives, the trial Court was under obligation to deal with the matter and record findings. The order passed by the trial Court on 4-7 -2005 reads: "heard both sides (two illegible words) petition ordered." 7. To say the least, it was the most unsatisfactory way of disposal, that the trial Court has given to the application. The order passed by the trial Court on 4-7 -2005 reads: "heard both sides (two illegible words) petition ordered." 7. To say the least, it was the most unsatisfactory way of disposal, that the trial Court has given to the application. Where an application was filed for such an important step as bringing the legal representatives of the sole defendant, and serious objections were raised both as to the date of death as well as the particulars of the legal representatives, the Court was supposed to bestow its attention, instead of mechanically passing an order, which does not befit the functions of a trained Judicial Officer. 8. The further sad part of the matter is that the certified copy of the order issued by the trial Court is not even legible. In these days of advanced technology and improved mechanism, we find ourselves at a stage, where an order comprising six words cannot be deciphered. This is a sad reflection on the functioning of the said Court. Simply because the facility of furnishing Xerox copies is provided, the Court was not expected to ignore its responsibility to ensure that legible copies are furnished. The in-charge of the Section in the trial Court, who issued such an order copy, deserves to be reprimanded and the learned Presiding Officer ought to have been very careful in the whole episode. 9. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the trial Court has just taken out the Xerox copy of the order and a separate sheet, on which the particulars of the date of application, date of submission of remarks etc., was attached to it. Such a course would reduce the entire process of issuing certified copies, to an empty formality or a shabby exercise. The sheet on which the particulars as to the submission of application etc., are contained, is capable of being replaced and the very purpose of requiring such particulars is prone to be defeated. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court is directed to consider the matter on merits dealing with all the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is also directed that proper care and caution must be exhibited in the matter of issuing certified copies. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court is directed to consider the matter on merits dealing with all the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is also directed that proper care and caution must be exhibited in the matter of issuing certified copies. 11. The Registrar (General) shall issue necessary directions to the Courts to ensure that the certified copies are issued in such a manner that the contents thereof are legible and the particulars as to the date of application and issuance of copy etc., are contained on the certified copy itself and not on a separate sheet.