Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 68 (AP)

B. Kiran Kumar v. Lekkala Radhamma

2013-02-06

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT : This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 21.06.2012, in I.A.No.536 of 2011 in O.S.No.79 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda. 2. I have heard Smt B.Tara Sujatha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms B.Avani Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Petitioner No.1 and his brother-B.Sairam filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property against the respondent. Petitioner No.1 filed I.A.No.536 of 2011 for condonation of delay of 1216 days in filing the petition under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. for bringing on record petitioner No.3 herein as plaintiff No.2 in place of her deceased father-B.Sairam. This said application was dismissed by the lower Court by the order under revision. 4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lower Court has committed a serious error in dismissing the said application on irrelevant reasons. According to the learned counsel, the only aspect which was required to be considered by the lower Court was whether petitioner No.1 was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the petition for bringing on record petitioner No.3 as the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff No.2 and that, instead of dealing with the case from that perspective, the lower Court has embarked upon the alleged death certificate produced by the respondent and also the competency or otherwise of Tenali Municipality in issuing the death certificate. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the lower Court having initially allowed the said application has altered the order by writing in manuscript the word “dismissed”. 6. On a careful reading of the order under revision, I feel that the criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the petitioners against the approach of the lower Court is completely justified. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners the only issue before the lower Court was whether petitioner No.1 made out a case for condonation of delay of 1216 days in filing the petition under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. for bringing on record petitioner No.3 as the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff No.2. Instead of approaching the issue towards this direction, the lower Court has needlessly ventured into the purported death certificate produced by the respondent showing that plaintiff No.2 died in the year 2001. Instead of approaching the issue towards this direction, the lower Court has needlessly ventured into the purported death certificate produced by the respondent showing that plaintiff No.2 died in the year 2001. The lower Court has also strayed into the discussion as to whether Tenali Municipality was competent to issue the death certificate of plaintiff No.2 when he has statedly died at Bangalore. 8. Even though the reasons given by the lower Court for dismissing the said application are wholly unsatisfactory, however, on the facts pleaded by the petitioners, result of the case shall remain unaltered for the reason that petitioner No.1 has miserably failed to satisfy the lower Court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the petition under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. for bringing on record petitioner No.3 as the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff No.2. 9. In his affidavit, filed in support of I.A.No.536 of 2011, petitioner No.1 has stated that plaintiff No.2 died on 01.11.2007 in Bangalore due to illness; that petitioner No.1 was not doing well and was unable to move about during the year 2007 due to his illness; that on account of his ignorance and illness, he could not intimate the death of plaintiff No.2 to his advocate; and that therefore, he could not file the petition under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. within 90 days from the date of death of plaintiff No.2. 10. In my opinion, the reasons given by petitioner No.1 are as vague as vagueness could be. He has not disclosed as to the nature of his illness much less has filed any evidence in support thereof. Even assuming that he was ill in the year 2007, that would not have prevented him from filing an application thereafter within a reasonable time. His explanation referred to above even if accepted, is woefully inadequate to condone the huge delay of 1216 days in filing the petition under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. for bringing on record petitioner No.3 as the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff No.2. Therefore, in my opinion, I.A.No.536 of 2011 filed by petitioner No.1 did not deserve to be allowed. Even though the said application was dismissed by the lower Court for wrong reasons, the petitioners cannot be allowed to derive advantage of the wrong reasons by the lower Court. 11. Therefore, in my opinion, I.A.No.536 of 2011 filed by petitioner No.1 did not deserve to be allowed. Even though the said application was dismissed by the lower Court for wrong reasons, the petitioners cannot be allowed to derive advantage of the wrong reasons by the lower Court. 11. For the above-mentioned reasons, even though the order under revision is thoroughly unsatisfactory, I am not inclined to interfere with the result of the petition. 12. Adverting to the approach of the lower Court, in para-VI of the order relating to the result portion, initially, it was typed as “Petition is allowed. However, the petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.150/- to M.L.S.A and Rs.150/- to other side.” These quoted words have been subsequently struck off with pen and substituted with the word “dismissed”. 13. In my opinion, the manner in which the lower Court has altered the said order reflects utter lack of care and circumspection on its part. Even if the lower Court has realised that order contained mistake in the result portion, it grossly failed to realise that making such alterations sends seriously wrong signals to the litigant public and such corrections would create a lurking suspicion in the mind of the losing party that the Court has changed the result of his case. Such opinions by the litigant public would tend to undermine the public faith in the judicial system. The lower Court ought to have got the order retyped after carrying out corrections. The Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, is cautioned to be careful in future. 14. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 15. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.5195 of 2012 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.