Y. Lingaiah v. Dhulla Venkatesh
[ 3258 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 533 OF 202'l Appeal filed under Sectron 173 of lvl.V.Act., against the order and decree, dated. 16.06.2014, passed in O.P. No.2605 of 201'1 , on the file of lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad Betvveen:
'l . Y. Lingaiah, S/o. Ramachandraiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: Nill.
2. Y. Rama Swamy, S/o. Lingaiah, aged about 30 years, Occ: Nill.
3. Parvathamma, D/o Lingaiah, aged about 28 years, Occ: Household, All Rio H.No.1-2-2401C, Amberpet, Hyderabad ...CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS AND
1. Dhulla Venkatesh, S/o. Balaram, Aged. Ma.ior, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.3-30, Thummalapalli Village, Vangoor lr4andal, Mahabubnagar Dist.
2. Shriram General lnsurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager' D-No.3-6517. Flat No.402 8s 403, lV Floor, Sai Datta Arcade, Street No.6, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. T Viswarupa Chary Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate The Court made the following: Judgment
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU MACMA.NO.533 0F 2021 JUDGMENT:
Mr.K.Revanth, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant. When the appeal is taken up for hearing, though the request is made on behalf of the appellant seeking adjournment on the ground of personal inconvenience, the learned counsel representing 2nd respondent i.e., Mr.Harinath Reddy Soma infornied the Court that his appeal has been filed on the basis of ex parte decree with regard to which the respondent No.2 had no knowledge. The 2nd respondent having come to know about the ex parte decree only after the claimant filed an execution petition, moved two separate interlocutory applications under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the other under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for condoning the delay in filing set aside petition. However, since the entire record is with the High Court, in the present appeal those interlocutory applications could not have been decided and sought for remanding matter to the trial Court for expedite
ia< i.
SSRN, .J vAClvIA.No 531 of 202 L disposal of two interlocutory applications on the time bound schedule. There is no dispute about the above referred interlocutory applications filed by the Insurance Company seeking to set aside the ex parte decree along with delay condone petition.
2.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also informed that he has already filed information with regard to interlocutory applications referred above. 3.
Considering the above circumstances, it is felt that there is necessity to remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to first decide the interlocutory applications on merits after hearing both parties.
4.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of. The trial Court shall on receipt of this order and bundle of the entire record provide opportunity to both parties and decide interlocutory applications under Section 5 of Limitation Act and Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. within two months from the date of receipt of this order considering the request of the Insurance Company about the attachment of the order and
SSRN,.] i\'lAC\lA No.533 of 2021 petition filed by the insurance company for stay of the I l execution.
I Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
I Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// ,e SECTIO OFFICER To The lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional, chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. (with Records if any) One CC to SRl. T VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. HARINATH REDDY SOtt/A, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies p pr r i
HIGH COURT I SSRN, J DATED: 2110612024 I '( c (n 1 6 t[r 2021 t1 iz Ct { Dts,., !. i- i: !i i-io
JUDGMENT
MACMA.No.533 ot 2021 I I ,:=-- l DISPOSING OF THE MACMA :
GrodoA trF,