BAHABALENDRUNI RAMAMURTHY Vs. U KIRSHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the common order dated 6-8-1996 passed by the learned Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District in LA. No.70 of 1996 in LA. No.16 of 1995 in O.S. No.27 of 1995.

(2.) In C.R.P. No.3020 of 1996 the revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.46 of 1994 on the file of the learned Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, seeking permanent injunction over the land to an extent of Ac. 5-95 cents in Survey No. 97/1 situated at Nuguru village, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District, against one Uppala Krishna Murthy, the first respondent herein. Petitioner filed I.A. No.24 of 1994 for interim injunction restraining the respondent therein from interfering with the petitioner's possession. Learned Special Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam, by order dated 17-11-1994 granted interim injunction and by common order dated 29-6-1995 petitioner was granted police protection in I.A. No.15 of 1995. The second respondent- Gote Ananthamma in these revision petitions also filed a suit in O.S. No.27 of 1995 on the file of the learned Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule lands and obtained interim injunction in I.A. No.16 of 1995 on 29-6-1995. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No.34 of 1995 in O.S. No.27 of 1995 to stay the proceedings stating that he has earlier instituted a suit for the same relief over the same land. On coming to know the filing of the earlier suit, the second respondent filed an interlocutory application to implead her as party respondent in O. S. No.46 of 1994 and the same is posted to 27-2-1996. When the interlocutory application came up for hearing, the respondent came to know that the injunction granted in her favour on 29-6-1995 in I.A. No.16 of 1995 in O.S. No.27 of 1995 was vacated and the injunction granted in favour of the revision petitioner herein in I.A. No.24 of 1994 in O.S. No.46 of 1994 was made absolute. Therefore, second respondent filed IX No.70 of 1996 in LA. No.24 of 1994 in O.S. NO.46 of 1994; and I.A. No. 71 of 1996 in I.A. No.16 of 1995 in O.S. No.27 of 1995 to set aside the order made on 31-01-1996 in I.A. No.24 of 1994 in O.S. No.46 of 1994 and I.A. No.16 of 1995 in O.S. No.27 of 1995 respectively stating that the learned Special Officer, who retired on 31-1-1996 has not conducted the Court proceedings and in fact, O.S. No.27 of 1995 and the application filed by her to implead her as party respondent in O.S. No.46 of 1994 were posted for hearing on 27-2-1996. When the Court clubbed both the suits and posted for arguments on 27-2-1996 vacating the stay on 31-1-1996 and without issuing any notice to her is improper and prayed to restore the orders passed in I.A. No.16 of 1995 dated 29-6-1995. The same was contested by the petitioner by filing a counter stating that the Tribunal has no power to review its own order passed on 31-1-1996 and only clerical and arithmetical error crept in the order alone are liable for corrections, but not for the review under Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules (for short 'the Rules'). Learned Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court by order dated 6-8-1996 set aside the order vacating the interim order dated 31-1-1996 in I.A. No.16 of 1995 in O.S. No.27 of 1995 and posted the I.A. No.34 of 1995 which is filed by the revision petitioner herein to stay the suits till 14-8-1996. Consequently order was passed making the injunction absolute in I.A. No.24 of 1995 and I.A. No.70 of 1996 the matter is posted to 14-8-1996.

(3.) Questioning the same, the revision petitions are filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.V. Ramana contended that under Rule 18 of the Rules only clerical and arithmetical errors in the judgments or orders are liable for corrections, but the same will not authorise the Tribunal to review its earlier order passed on 31-1-1996. Rule 54 of the Rules empowers the learned Agent to the State Government to review his own judgment or order, and Rule 56 of the Rules contemplates six weeks period of limitation for an appeal from the decree of an Agency Munsif or for review of the judgment or order. But there is seven and half months delay in filing the application in the present case and without any delay petition, entertainment of application and setting aside the order is bad. He further pressed that this Court by order dated 6-8-1996 suspended the order passed by the lower Tribunal. Hence prays to allow the revision petitions with a direction to the learned Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam to dispose of both the suits as expeditiously as possible.