V VENKAT REDDY Vs. V GOPI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, Suryapet in I.A.No. 583 of 1995 in O.S.No. 64 of 1989 dismissing the review application filed by the petitioners on the ground that a wrong provision was given in the petition, the present revision is filed.

(2.) By order dated 17-4-1997, 1 ordered notice before admission. After receipt of notice the respondent engaged a Counsel who when the case is called is not present in the Court. Hence I am constrained to dispose of the revision petition after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(3.) I have gone through the order of the Subordinate Judge, Suryapet. I am of the opinion that if any wrong provision is quoted in the petition it should have been returned at the stage of scrutiny but the Court having numbered the interlocutory application it would have permitted the petitioners to substitute the correct provision of law instead of dismissing the application straightaway on that ground. The Court is bound to see that substantial justice is done than following technical rules of justice. This sort of procedures adopted by the lower judiciary cannot be appreciated.