PECHETTI RAMBABU Vs. SHAZAMANI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition was admitted on 22. 2. 2008 and in CRP MP no. 1025/2008 interim stay was granted. CRP MP No. 1736/2008 is filed to vacate the interim stay dated 22. 2. 2008 made in CRP mp No. 1025/2008 in CRP No. 783/2008.

(2.) THE Counsel on record, Sri T. S. Anand, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Udaya Bhasker representing Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra kumar, the learned Counsel representing the respondent in the C. R. P. , made a request for disposal of the main civil revision petition and hence, the civil revision petition itself is being disposed of by this Court, though the matter is appearing under the caption of interlocutory.

(3.) SRI T. S. Anand, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the learned VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam was unable to appreciate the scope and ambit of order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil procedure. The learned Counsel also would further maintain that it is only by inadvertence the lawyer's notice sent by the respondent was not marked before the court of first instance and in the light of the same, the said document to be marked at the appellate stage. The learned Counsel also would maintain that it is settled principle of law that an application filed under Order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be decided along with appeal and it cannot be dismissed at the threshold. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.