Rev. C.M.P. No. 6345 of 2013 in Civil Revision Petition No. 870 of 2012. Case: Vardhineedi Narasimha Rao Vs Gadiraju Bapiraju. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Rev. C.M.P. No. 6345 of 2013 in Civil Revision Petition No. 870 of 2012 |
| Judges | C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 1; Order XXI Rule 85 |
| Citation | 2014 (4) ALD 618, 2014 (4) ALT 806 |
| Judgement Date | April 28, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
-
This Petition is filed for reviewing order, dated 24.04.2012, in Civil Revision Petition No. 870 of 2012.
-
The brief facts leading to the filing of' this Petition are stated hereunder.
-
The petitioner is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 14 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, East Godavari District. He has filed E.P. No. 1 of 2010 seeking execution of the decree. By order, dated 30.01.2012, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the E.P. on the ground that the petitioner has deposited the stamps beyond the time stipulated under Rule 85 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The petitioner therefore filed CRP. No. 870 of 2012. By order, dated 24.04.2012, this Court allowed the revision petition based on the judgment in Bathula Lakshmi Rajeswara Rao v. Thotakura Subba Rao and another C.R.P. No. 1491 of 2000, on the premise that by an amendment brought out to Rule 85 of Order XXI CPC, the deposit of stamps as required under Rule 94 was taken out of the purview of Rule 85 of Order XXI CPC. The respondent/judgment-debtor filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the said order before the Supreme Court. By order, dated 24.09.2012, the Supreme Court, after taking note of the plea of the respondent that no amendment was made to Rule 85 of Order XXI CPC, permitted him to withdraw the SLP and approach this Court by way of a review petition. Accordingly, the respondent filed the present review petition with a delay of 172 days in filing the same.
-
This Court by order, dated 25.09.2013, in CRPMP. No. 1394.of 2013 in Civil Revision Petition No. 870 of 2012, condoned the delay in filing the Review Petition. In consequence thereof, the Review Petition is registered and posted for hearing.
-
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
-
It is not in dispute that the order under review was passed based on the earlier order, dated 29.02.2012, of this Court in Bathula Lakshmi Rajeswara Rao (1-supra). A perusal of the said order would show that this Court while relying upon judgment, dated 12.01.2011, of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Kunhambu v. Geetha R.P. No. 78 of 1987, Dt. 12-1-2001 (Kerala High Court) and also the judgment of this Court in G. Venkata Reddy v. B. Venkat Reddy 2010 (5) ALD 821 held that by Act 104 of 1976, the Parliament has amended Order XXI Rule 85 CPC, as per which, the words "general stamp for...
To continue reading
Request your trial