P. KRISHNA REDDY Vs. M. NARASIMHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application the First Additional District Judge, Chittoor sought for extension of time by six months to dispose of the appeal, A.S. No. 98 of 2001, pending on his file by stating that the appellant in the appeal Mr. Mangasamudram Narasimha Reddy changed his Counsel on the last date of adjournment i.e., on 25.7.2002 and the Counsel for the appellant having addressed the arguments, filed LA. No. 276 of 2002 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive two documents i.e., certified copy of the plaint in O.S.279/83 filed by the vendor of the respondent, and the notice issued by the daughter to his father, Mr. M. Narasimha Reddy seeking partition of the properties held by her mother who died intestate and the said I.A. is pending. Since the appellant changed his Counsel on the verge of the expiry of time, by order dated 8.11.2002, I directed not only the Counsel but also the appellant to be present before this Court. Today both of them appeared before this Court and filed certified copies of the docket orders along with other orders. I understand that the suit schedule property stood in the name of late Lakshmamma wife of Narasimha Reddy, the defendant in the present suit, O.S.No. 26 of 1996 and the appellant in A.S. No. 98/2001. After her death, their daughter, Vanajakshi, sought for partition of the property, since her mother died intestate, from her father. Thereafter, she also filed O.S.No. 279/83 seeking partition of the property and the same was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed directing partition of the properties between the parties. At this stage, Vanajakshi sold some of the items of the suit schedule property to Mr. Krishna Reddy and he filed the present suit O.S.No. 26/96 against Narasimha Reddy father of Vanajakshi restraining him from interfering with his possession and that the suit was decreed by the Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor without reference to the preliminary decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 279 of 1983.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree Mr. Narasimha Reddy carried the matter in appeal, A.S. No. 98 of 2001, to District Court. Along with the appeal he filed I.A. No. 313 of 2001 seeking injunction restraining Mr. Krishna Reddy from making any construction. At the time of arguments the Counsel seem to have submitted that Mr. Krishna Reddy is trying to alienate the properties. In those circumstances initially the First Additional District Judge by his order dated 6 -9 -2001 in I.A. No. 250 of 2001 directed Krishna Reddy not to dispose of the property until further orders. Thereafter, on the sought for modification of the order by replacing the words "dispose of" to that of "construct". In other words he wanted injunction restraining Mr. Krishna Reddy from making any construction over the property and the same was allowed by the Court.

(3.) SINCE arguments were completed before expiry of the time, nothing prevented the learned Judge to pass orders within a reasonable time. But he adopted a novel method by adjourning the case from 6 -8 -2002 to 21 -8 -2002 and addressed a letter to this Court on 2.8.2002 seeking extension of time by six months to dispose of the matter. I am really astonished to see why the Judicial Officer wants six months' more time to pass orders having heard the argument before the time limit fixed by the Court. Be that as it may, on the ground of non -receipt of extension orders from this Court the learned Judge went on adjourning the matter up to 11 -9 -2002. The endorsement on 11 -9 -2002 is also interesting. "Await reply. First respondent filed written arguments. Further arguments of appellant and the respondent's arguments were heard. Judgment reserved". When he was adjourning the case all these days, on the ground that extension orders were not received, it is not known what necessitated him to hear arguments on that day. Be that as it may, he did not pronounce the judgment. Once again on 10 -10 -2002 he opened the matter suo motu for further arguments and posted the matter to 8 -11 -2002. On 8 -11 -2002 from the docket it is apparent that the Presiding Officer seemed to be on O.D. and the matter was adjourned to 3 -12 -2002. On 3 -12 -2002 the officer availed Optional Holiday. It is seen from the docket orders that the respondent filed written arguments on 3 -8 -2002 and in fact the learned Judge heard the arguments of both the parties to the appeal on 25 -7 -2002 and he made an endorsement to that effect on the docket. But the learned Judge went on adjourning the case for sometime on the ground that he has addressed a letter to the High Court seeking extension of time and no orders were received by him. Having suddenly changed his mind and heard the matter on 11 -9 -2002 re -opened the matter on 10.10.2002. Thereafter he was on other duty.