AURO UNIVЕRSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
STUDЕNT NAMЕ: Neel Dalal
COURSЕ: BBA LLB (2016-2021) – Semester 8
MODULE: Code of Civil Procedure
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
University Rankings
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Our save-the-student-ebooks!
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
CASE BRIEF OF IPR Katari Suryanarayana & Ors vs Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors, Papers of Law
IPR CASE Katari Suryanarayana & Ors vs Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors
Typology: Papers
2019/2020
1 / 4
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Partial preview of the text
Download CASE BRIEF OF IPR Katari Suryanarayana & Ors vs Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors and more Papers Law in PDF only on Docsity!
AURO UNIVЕRSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
STUDЕNT NAMЕ: Neel Dalal
COURSЕ: BBA LLB (2016-2021) – Semester 8
MODULE: Code of Civil Procedure
Supreme Court of India
Katari Suryanarayana & Ors vs Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors on 8 April, 2009
Bench : S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma
Katari Suryanarayana & Ors. ... Appellants
Versus
Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors. ... Respondents
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The parties were neighbours. The dispute between them arose in relation to user of a lane.
Katari Suryanarayana claim that they were entitled to use the passage in exercise of their
right of easement. They purchased some property including the 1/12th right of the vendors in the disputed suit land on or about 6.11.1985. Prior thereto, they were said to have been enjoying an easmentary right thereover.
- Koppisetti Subba filed a suit in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Ramachandrapuram on or about 27.12.1985 praying, inter alia, for a decree for grant of mandatory injunction as also a decree for permanent injunction against the appellants restraining them from using the land in dispute. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge by a judgment and decree dated 15.6.1993.
- Then they preferred an appeal there against. The Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram allowed the said appeal by a judgment and decree dated 22.11.1996 holding that they being the owners of the land in suit, were entitled to a decree for mandatory as also permanent injunction.
- Appellant approached the High Court in the year 1997 aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court by preferring a second appeal. Indisputably during the pendency of the said appeal; whereas Respondent No.3 expired on 31.5.1999, Respondent No.2 expired on 14.1.2000.
- No application for their substitution within the period prescribed under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Appellant filed an application for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the said respondent Nos.2 and 3 only in December 2006 alleging that they had been informed thereabout by their counsel only on 19.11.2006.
- An application for condonation of delay in filing the said application was also filed. The said applications, as noticed hereinbefore, were barred by 2381 days and 2601 days respectively.
ISSUE
Whether or not condonation of delay is allowed or not?
Rule
- Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Section 5 of the 'Indian Limitation Act, 1877.
or what would be held as a sufficient cause for setting aside abatement. In any case, it very well
may be said that the deferral really taking shape of such applications ought not be for reasons
which show the plantiff negligence in not making certain steps which he could have and
ought to have taken. What might be such essential steps would again rely upon the conditions
of a specific case and each case should be chosen by the Court on the facts & conditions of
the case. Any statement of illustrative circumstances or facts can tend to be a curb on the free
exercise of its mind by the Court in determining the sufficient cause. Courts need to use their discretion in the interests of justice. Though it is likewise evident that the provisions of the limitation act can't be interpreted in a meticulous way. Sufficient cause for not making the application inside the time of restriction ought to be comprehended and applied in a sensible, , viable and liberal way, contingent on the facts &