CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1992) 08 AP CK 0040

P. Kodandarami Reddy vs Nagarjuna Investment Trust Ltd. and Another

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 7 August 1992 · Citation: (1993) 1 ALT 53 : (1992) 2 AnWR 73 : (1992) 2 APLJ 483

HON’BLE JUDGES
Motilal B. Naik, J
CASE NUMBER
Rev. CMP No. 10673/92 in CRP No. 4059/91
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 428 words

Motilal B. Naik, J.—This court by an order dated 19-6-92 dismissed the C.R.P. C.R.P.4059/91 was filed assailing the legality of the order passed by the lower court on the sole ground that the impugned order passed under Rules 6 and 7 of Order, 39, C.P.C. was without notice.

2.

The present review petition is filed bringing to my notice that the main objection taken was that the lower court has not followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 8 of Order 39 C.P.C. and therefore, the order passed by this court on 19-6-92 has not dealt with the provisions of Rule 8 and hence the same needs review.

3.

In order to decide this aspect, it is necessary to read down the provisions of Rule 8, Order 39, C.P.C. and it is as under.

"8 (1) An application by the plaintiff for an order under Rules 6 and 7 may be made at any time after institution of the suit.

(2) An application by the defendant for a like order may be made at any time after appearance.

(3) Before making an order under Rules 6 and 7 on an application made for the purpose, the Court, shall, except where it appears that the object of making such order would be defeated by the delay, direct notice thereof to be given to the opposite party."

4.

A Plain reading of clause (3) of Rule 8 of Order 39 C.P.C. contemplates issuance of a notice and yet the court, considering the petition under Rule 6 or Rule 7, in exceptional cases, can dispense with the issuance of notice. Thus, I have do doubt in my mind that the trial court has sufficient reasons for passing the order, which is impugned in the C.R.P. The lower Court has stated categorically that if notice is directed, the very purpose of filing the petition will be defeated and, therefore, it justified its action in passing the order impugned in the C.R.P.

5.

Having regard to the nature of the case and the order passed by the lower court, I am of the opinion that the order is in accordance with the provisions and there is no illegality or error apparent in the order passed by the lower court. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to have the trial court for vacating the interim directions or varying it and if the trial court is satisfied, it is open to that Court to pass orders according to merits of the case.

6.

The review petition is accordingly disposed of.