Tallapally Vijaya v. M/S. Vijetha Developers And Constructions

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD Date: 31.10.2018 Between:

Tallapally Vijaya W/o.Laxman, Aged 52 years, Occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.5-571, Iqbal Ahmed Nagar, Mancherial, Mancherial district and another ...

Appellants And M/s.Vijetha Developers & Constructions, Mancherial rep. by its partner Taduri Posham, S/o.Bapu Aged 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12-363/2, Isslampur, Mancherial, Mancherial and three others.

...

Respondents Counsel for the Appellants :

Mr. Gaddam Srinivas Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. E.Venkat Reddy The Court made the following:

Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against order dated 12.12.2017 in I.A.No.735 of 2017 in O.S.No.32 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional District Judge at Asifabad FAC II Additional District Judge (FTC) at Mancherial.

2.

The sole basis for filing this appeal is that the order passed by the lower court does not conform to the mandatory requirements of Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C. As the certified copy of the order filed along with the appeal did not contain any reasons and the counsel for neither of the parties informed the court that a separate order was passed containing reasons, despite a query to that effect was put to them, this court disposed of the C.M.A. by order dated 24.10.2018, setting aside the order under appeal. However, before the said order was signed, Mr.E.Venkat Reddy counsel for the respondents mentioned in the open court that the appellants have only filed the decree part of the order and that a separate docket order containing the reasons, was passed on the same day by the lower court. Therefore, this court directed the case to be posted "for being mentioned".

3.

Today at the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants has admitted that a separate docket order containing reasons, was passed

and that neither his counterpart in the lower court nor the appellants brought this fact to his notice.

4.

Inasmuch as the court below has complied with the mandatory requirements of Rule 3 of Order 39 of Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. __________________________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) _____________________ (T.Amarnath Goud, J) Date: 31st October, 2018 msb