//
you're reading...
legal issues

agency area and agency courts= the suits are to be instituted before the specialized authorities in agency areas, the procedure for adjudication of those suits is similar to the suits filed under C.P.C. Issues are required to be framed, based upon the pleadings, the parties are permitted to adduce evidence and the concerned authority discharging the functions of the Court can render its judgment. In the instant case, the appellants herein presented a plaint claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondents on their part filed a written statement. The Agent to Government ought to have framed an issue and then permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Instead, a report was called for from the Tahsildar. Such a course is totally impermissible in law. To certain extent, the appellants had also contributed for the improper disposal of the appeal. Based upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the appellants have amended the plaint schedule. Taking these developments into account, the Agent to Government dismissed the suit, leaving it open to the appellants to pursue the further remedies. The procedure adopted by the Agent to Government was not at all correct. He ought to have permitted the parties to adduce evidence and then decide the matter on merits. There was absolutely no justification to dispose of the suit without recording any evidence. On this short ground, the A.S. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Agent to Government, Kakinada for fresh consideration and disposal on merits, after recording evidence.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

"The Old Bailey, Known Also as the Centra...

Image via Wikipedia

 

A.S.No.1014 of 2010

 

JUDGMENT:

 

The parties hail from a scheduled area in East Godavari District.  The appellants filed O.S.No.10 of 2008 before the Agent to Government, East Godavari District at Kakinada against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.00 in Survey No.18/3, 1.60 cents each in Survey Nos.19/1 and 91 situated at Ramuladevapuram Village, Gangaravam Mandal, East Godavari District.  It was pleaded that the land was settled on them by one Sri Mangaiah Chowdary and ever since then, they were in possession and enjoyment of the property.  During the pendency of suit, it appears that the Agent to Government called for a report from the Tahsildar and he in turn submitted a report to the effect that the appellants are in possession of Ac.5.60 cents of land in Survey No.19/1 and Ac.1.60 cents in Survey No.91/1.  Based upon that, the appellants amended the plaint schedule.

The Agent to Government dismissed the suit, through order, dated 06.08.2010, pointing out certain discrepancies as to the claim made by the appellants.  Hence, this appeal under Rule 49 of the A.P. Agency Rules 1924 read with Section 96 C.P.C.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

But for the fact that the suits are to be instituted before the specialized authorities in agency areas, the procedure for adjudication of those suits is similar to the suits filed under C.P.C.  Issues are required to be framed, based upon the pleadings, the parties are permitted to adduce evidence and the concerned authority discharging the functions of the Court can render its judgment.  In the instant case, the appellants herein presented a plaint claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondents on their part filed a written statement.  The Agent to Government ought to have framed an issue and then permitted the parties to adduce evidence.  Instead, a report was called for from the Tahsildar. Such a course is totally impermissible in law.

To certain extent, the appellants had also contributed for the improper disposal of the appeal.  Based upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the appellants have amended the plaint schedule.  Taking these developments into account, the Agent to Government dismissed the suit, leaving it open to the appellants to pursue the further remedies.

The procedure adopted by the Agent to Government was not at all correct.  He ought to have permitted the parties to adduce evidence and then decide the matter on merits.  There was absolutely no justification to dispose of the suit without recording any evidence.  On this short ground, the A.S. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside.  The matter is remanded to the Agent to Government, Kakinada for fresh consideration and disposal on merits, after recording evidence.

It is brought to notice of this Court that I.A.No.2 of 2008 filed by the appellants for temporary injunction was dismissed.  In that view of the matter, the appellants shall not be entitled to any interim orders in their favour, till the suit is disposed of.  The interim order passed by this Court on 19.01.2011 in A.S.M.P.No.2699 of 2010 is dissolved.  There shall be no order as to costs.

__________

04.07.2011

Jsu


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.S.No.1014 of 2010

Date: 04.07.2011

JSU

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

One thought on “agency area and agency courts= the suits are to be instituted before the specialized authorities in agency areas, the procedure for adjudication of those suits is similar to the suits filed under C.P.C. Issues are required to be framed, based upon the pleadings, the parties are permitted to adduce evidence and the concerned authority discharging the functions of the Court can render its judgment. In the instant case, the appellants herein presented a plaint claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondents on their part filed a written statement. The Agent to Government ought to have framed an issue and then permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Instead, a report was called for from the Tahsildar. Such a course is totally impermissible in law. To certain extent, the appellants had also contributed for the improper disposal of the appeal. Based upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the appellants have amended the plaint schedule. Taking these developments into account, the Agent to Government dismissed the suit, leaving it open to the appellants to pursue the further remedies. The procedure adopted by the Agent to Government was not at all correct. He ought to have permitted the parties to adduce evidence and then decide the matter on merits. There was absolutely no justification to dispose of the suit without recording any evidence. On this short ground, the A.S. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Agent to Government, Kakinada for fresh consideration and disposal on merits, after recording evidence.

  1. I love your blog, you should add an RSS feed feature so I can get automatic notifications of new blogs. If you set one up please email me! i will bookmark you for now. Again Excellent Blog!

    Posted by 5 Factor Coupon Code | October 22, 2011, 6:19 AM

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,609 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: