whether a counter-claim can be rejected in terms of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, especially in the facts and circumstances of this case.= (i) Wherever the defence to a suit can survive even if the counter-claim goes, then the Court will be entitled to invoke Order VII, Rule 11 CPC and reject the counter-claim. (ii) Wherever the defence to the suit is so intertwined with the counter-claim that the rejection of the counter-claim will have the effect of killing the defence to the suit, the Court cannot invoke Order VII, Rule 11 CPC to reject the counter- claim.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Second Appeal No.896 of 2017 15-12-2017 Jinendra Jewellers, Rep. by its Proprietor Kushal Raj, S/o Seshmal Jain, Aged 46 years, D.No.27-14-59, Rajagopalachari Stree 1.B.Venkateswara Rao, S/o late B.V. Subba Rao, Aged 62 years, R/o D.No.27-14-59, Rajagopalachari Street, Vijayawada 2. B.Vi Vijayawada Respondents/Plaintiffs Counsel for Appellant:Mr V.S.R. Anjaneyulu Counsel for Respondents:Mr. P.R.… Read More whether a counter-claim can be rejected in terms of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, especially in the facts and circumstances of this case.= (i) Wherever the defence to a suit can survive even if the counter-claim goes, then the Court will be entitled to invoke Order VII, Rule 11 CPC and reject the counter-claim. (ii) Wherever the defence to the suit is so intertwined with the counter-claim that the rejection of the counter-claim will have the effect of killing the defence to the suit, the Court cannot invoke Order VII, Rule 11 CPC to reject the counter- claim.

No -re-opened suo motu by the Presiding Officers= where the cases once posted for judgment are re-opened suo motu by the Presiding Officers thereby the decisions are getting delayed causing hardship to the parties and counsel. While deprecating the said practice, the High Court hereby directs all the Presiding Officers in the State not to resort to such practice, and pronounce judgments, at once, and only in exceptional circumstances the cases are to be reopened. = At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial Court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of the judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said timetable as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed. ; Court creates a needless suspicion in the minds of the parties= Once the trial is completed and the judgment is reserved, it is wholly undesirable to reopen the case by the Court suo motu. This is a very unhealthy practice, which, apart from giving scope for unscrupulous parties to indulge in vexatious litigation by filing needless applications, as in the present case, also gives rise to speculation, often putting the credibility of the Judge at stake. By resorting to such practice, the Court creates a needless suspicion in the minds of the parties and gives scope for avoidable rumour mongering. In my opinion, till the arguments of both sides in all respects are completed and the Court gets clarity on all aspects from the counsel for both sides, it shall not reserve the case for judgment. Once the judgment is reserved, it must avoid reopening of the case suo motu as far as possible, except in exceptional circumstances.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3673 of 2017 03-11-2017   Bhamidimarri Vijaya Lakshmi Petitioner M.Uma Lakshmi Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Muddu Vijai Counsel for the Respondent : –   <GIST: >HEAD NOTE : ? CITATION :1. (2011) 8 SCC 249 THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL… Read More No -re-opened suo motu by the Presiding Officers= where the cases once posted for judgment are re-opened suo motu by the Presiding Officers thereby the decisions are getting delayed causing hardship to the parties and counsel. While deprecating the said practice, the High Court hereby directs all the Presiding Officers in the State not to resort to such practice, and pronounce judgments, at once, and only in exceptional circumstances the cases are to be reopened. = At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial Court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of the judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said timetable as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed. ; Court creates a needless suspicion in the minds of the parties= Once the trial is completed and the judgment is reserved, it is wholly undesirable to reopen the case by the Court suo motu. This is a very unhealthy practice, which, apart from giving scope for unscrupulous parties to indulge in vexatious litigation by filing needless applications, as in the present case, also gives rise to speculation, often putting the credibility of the Judge at stake. By resorting to such practice, the Court creates a needless suspicion in the minds of the parties and gives scope for avoidable rumour mongering. In my opinion, till the arguments of both sides in all respects are completed and the Court gets clarity on all aspects from the counsel for both sides, it shall not reserve the case for judgment. Once the judgment is reserved, it must avoid reopening of the case suo motu as far as possible, except in exceptional circumstances.

Section 10 or 151, Civil P.C. are not applicable.- rentcontrol case for eviction- suit for partition – stay of rent control petition- dismissed= Under S.10 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, if the tenants deny the title of the landlord or claim permanent tenancy, then the Rent Controller has to determine the bona fides of that plea raised by the tenants. If he is of the opinion that the denial of landlords title by the tenants is bona fide, then he shall dismiss the eviction petition filed by the landlord. If on the other hand he is not satisfied about the bona fides of the denial of title raised by the tenants, then he shall order the tenants to put the landlord in possession of the building.When a particular procedure is laid down in the Rent Control Act itself in case of denial of title provisions of Civil P.C. i.e., Section 10 or 151, Civil P.C. are not applicable. The provisions of Section 10 (6) of the Rent Control Act are also mandatory. The Rent Controller has no option to proceed in any other manner except in the manner stated in Section 10 (6) in case of denial of landlords title by the tenants. In the said case, the petitioner sought eviction of tenant under the provisions of the Act and a petition under Section 10 r/w. Section 151 CPC was filed to stay the proceedings on the ground that partition suit is pending against the landlord and thereby the tenant denied the title of the landlord. In such a situation, it was held that the rent control proceedings are summary proceedings, which are intended to be disposed of expeditiously. The proceedings in the suit may take long time for disposal and it would be unjust to stay the rent control proceedings till disposal of the partition suit. The ratio referred to above is directly applicable to the facts of the present case.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.333 OF 2013 03-11-2017 Yerra Seshagiri Rao Petitioner Dunna Renukadevi Respondent Counsel for Petitioner :Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar Counsel for Respondent:Sri M.Rammohan Reddy <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred :1)AIR 1972 AP 186 (V.59 C 42) THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.333 OF 2013… Read More Section 10 or 151, Civil P.C. are not applicable.- rentcontrol case for eviction- suit for partition – stay of rent control petition- dismissed= Under S.10 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, if the tenants deny the title of the landlord or claim permanent tenancy, then the Rent Controller has to determine the bona fides of that plea raised by the tenants. If he is of the opinion that the denial of landlords title by the tenants is bona fide, then he shall dismiss the eviction petition filed by the landlord. If on the other hand he is not satisfied about the bona fides of the denial of title raised by the tenants, then he shall order the tenants to put the landlord in possession of the building.When a particular procedure is laid down in the Rent Control Act itself in case of denial of title provisions of Civil P.C. i.e., Section 10 or 151, Civil P.C. are not applicable. The provisions of Section 10 (6) of the Rent Control Act are also mandatory. The Rent Controller has no option to proceed in any other manner except in the manner stated in Section 10 (6) in case of denial of landlords title by the tenants. In the said case, the petitioner sought eviction of tenant under the provisions of the Act and a petition under Section 10 r/w. Section 151 CPC was filed to stay the proceedings on the ground that partition suit is pending against the landlord and thereby the tenant denied the title of the landlord. In such a situation, it was held that the rent control proceedings are summary proceedings, which are intended to be disposed of expeditiously. The proceedings in the suit may take long time for disposal and it would be unjust to stay the rent control proceedings till disposal of the partition suit. The ratio referred to above is directly applicable to the facts of the present case.

Rule 1 of Order 8 – written statement shall not be later than ninety days – Supreme Court had set a clear guideline to the subordinate Courts to discourage accepting of the written statements beyond the stipulated time.= the Supreme Court had cautiously taken notice of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Nanhkus case, and observed that the said case is no authority for receiving the written statement after the expiry of the period permitted by law, in a routine manner. In the above-extracted paragraph, the Supreme Court had set a clear guideline to the subordinate Courts to discourage accepting of the written statements beyond the stipulated time. In those circumstances, there being no weighty reasons for non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated time, the order of the Court below rejecting to receive the same, at a belated stage, cannot be found fault with. The Civil Revision Petition does not, therefore, merit any consideration and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Civil Revision Petition No. 6510 of 2017 08-12-2017 Jareena Sultana Petitioner Chail Sings & others Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:Sri K. Narsi Reddy Counsel for the respondents:Sri A. Chandra Sekhar <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases cited: 1.AIR 2005 SC 2441 2.(2007) 6 SCC 420   THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE… Read More Rule 1 of Order 8 – written statement shall not be later than ninety days – Supreme Court had set a clear guideline to the subordinate Courts to discourage accepting of the written statements beyond the stipulated time.= the Supreme Court had cautiously taken notice of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Nanhkus case, and observed that the said case is no authority for receiving the written statement after the expiry of the period permitted by law, in a routine manner. In the above-extracted paragraph, the Supreme Court had set a clear guideline to the subordinate Courts to discourage accepting of the written statements beyond the stipulated time. In those circumstances, there being no weighty reasons for non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated time, the order of the Court below rejecting to receive the same, at a belated stage, cannot be found fault with. The Civil Revision Petition does not, therefore, merit any consideration and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

whether the Court at Hyderabad did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. = Thus, the defendants admitted the payments were made at Hyderabad. The witness examined on behalf of the defendants as DW.1 is the partner of the first defendant firm. On 31.07.1998 during the course of his cross- examination, he clearly admits that he used to make payments to the plaintiff at Hyderabad office and also correspondence was with Hyderabad office. In addition, the correspondence clearly shows that the issues relating to the suit transaction alone were discussed in the exhibits filed and most of the letters are addressed to the plaintiffs office at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. ; validity of documents appears to have been prepared after the suit is filed = It is clear as per settled law that documents prepared subsequent to the filing of the suit are to be scrutinized with greater care when compared to documents which are prior to the suit. The case law reported in Chakicherla Audilakshmamma v. Atmakaru Ramarao and others , State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh , Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan and P. Kumar v. the State of Tamilnadu is relevant, wherein the Honble Supreme Court clearly held that the documents ante litem motam should be scrutinized with greater care because they may be prepared with the litigation in mind. ; mere account copy – computerized printout – not a valid document = As far as the account copy marked as Ex.B.22 is concerned. it is a computerized printout which is merely signed by DW.1. No supporting data like books/ledgers/ invoices etc. to support the entries in Ex.B.22 are produced. As per the decision reported in Smt. Chandrakantaben and another v. Vadilal Bapalal Modi and others the Honble Supreme Court of India held that entries in account books should be supported by documents like ledgers etc. and somebody should take care to explain the entries also. In this case, a computerized sheet is filed and marked as Ex.B.22. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that neither Ex.B.21 nor Ex.B.22 are adequately proved as required by law and the lower Court is right in not giving due weight with these two documents. ; Mere failure to reply to a notice does not amount to an admission – Division Bench of this Court in Manepalli Udaya Bhaskara Rao v. Kamboyina Dharmaraju . The Division Bench considered the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Watkins Mayor and Company and came to a conclusion that the failure to reply to the notices is not an admission.

HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU CCCA No.169 of 1999 09-11-2017 M/s. Plywood Syndicate, a partnership firm and 2 others Appellants/Defendants M/s. National Ply Wood Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Respondent/Plaintiff Counsel for the appellants: V.S.R. Anjaneyulu Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared. <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 2010 (6) ALD 484 2… Read More whether the Court at Hyderabad did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. = Thus, the defendants admitted the payments were made at Hyderabad. The witness examined on behalf of the defendants as DW.1 is the partner of the first defendant firm. On 31.07.1998 during the course of his cross- examination, he clearly admits that he used to make payments to the plaintiff at Hyderabad office and also correspondence was with Hyderabad office. In addition, the correspondence clearly shows that the issues relating to the suit transaction alone were discussed in the exhibits filed and most of the letters are addressed to the plaintiffs office at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. ; validity of documents appears to have been prepared after the suit is filed = It is clear as per settled law that documents prepared subsequent to the filing of the suit are to be scrutinized with greater care when compared to documents which are prior to the suit. The case law reported in Chakicherla Audilakshmamma v. Atmakaru Ramarao and others , State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh , Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan and P. Kumar v. the State of Tamilnadu is relevant, wherein the Honble Supreme Court clearly held that the documents ante litem motam should be scrutinized with greater care because they may be prepared with the litigation in mind. ; mere account copy – computerized printout – not a valid document = As far as the account copy marked as Ex.B.22 is concerned. it is a computerized printout which is merely signed by DW.1. No supporting data like books/ledgers/ invoices etc. to support the entries in Ex.B.22 are produced. As per the decision reported in Smt. Chandrakantaben and another v. Vadilal Bapalal Modi and others the Honble Supreme Court of India held that entries in account books should be supported by documents like ledgers etc. and somebody should take care to explain the entries also. In this case, a computerized sheet is filed and marked as Ex.B.22. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that neither Ex.B.21 nor Ex.B.22 are adequately proved as required by law and the lower Court is right in not giving due weight with these two documents. ; Mere failure to reply to a notice does not amount to an admission – Division Bench of this Court in Manepalli Udaya Bhaskara Rao v. Kamboyina Dharmaraju . The Division Bench considered the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Watkins Mayor and Company and came to a conclusion that the failure to reply to the notices is not an admission.

rebuttal evidence = Order XVIII Rule 3 addresses the question as to what should be done when the burden of proving some of the issues lies on one party. The Rule reads as follows: Rule-3:- Evidence where several issues — Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case. The first pre condition for invocation of Order XVIII Rule 3 is that there must be several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the party beginning. The second important aspect of Order XVIII Rule 3 is that it is only an option given to a party.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN C.R.P.No.5665 of 2017 15-12-2017 Chaganti Lakshma Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy,R/o.Nunna, Vijayawada Rural Mandal,Krishna District, Vijayawada D.M.C. Petitioner/D 1.Chaganti Siva Rami Reddy, S/o. Chaganti lakshma Reddy, Occ: Employee, at present resident of Bangalore, rep. by his Power 2.Dr. Chaganti Harsh Reddy, S/o. Changanti Lakshma Reddy, Occ: Doctor, Royal Residency, Flat No.501,… Read More rebuttal evidence = Order XVIII Rule 3 addresses the question as to what should be done when the burden of proving some of the issues lies on one party. The Rule reads as follows: Rule-3:- Evidence where several issues — Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case. The first pre condition for invocation of Order XVIII Rule 3 is that there must be several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the party beginning. The second important aspect of Order XVIII Rule 3 is that it is only an option given to a party.

Whether fair rent fixed by Rent Controller exceeding the upper limit of jurisdiction of Rent controller fixed under Section 32 of the Act from the date of petition under Section 4(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, takes away the jurisdiction that conferred on the Rent Controller in a petition filed under Section 10 of the Act, subsequent to filing of petition under Section 4(1) of the Act?. = The fixation of fair rent is only an incidental issue of the matter and therefore the same is of no avail and would not impact the eviction of the tenant if the landlord has been found to be in need of the premises and the tenant is found to have own premises as well as the tenant having defaulted in payment of rents as has been found on all three grounds in the present matter. 30. In view of the above, we hold in the present reference that, the Rent controller Court would continue to have jurisdiction, in spite of fixation of fair rent of the premises at any amount more than Rs.3,500/-, if the rent of the premises when eviction proceedings were filed was less than Rs.3,500/-

HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU C.R.P No.6465 OF 2016 10-11-2017 Smt Radhi Raney and another Petitioners Mrs. Nanki Feroze…. Respondent   Counsel for the Petitioners: R.A. Achuthanand Counsel for the Respondent: Mohd. Imran Khan <Gist : >Head Note : ? Cases referred : 1. 2007… Read More Whether fair rent fixed by Rent Controller exceeding the upper limit of jurisdiction of Rent controller fixed under Section 32 of the Act from the date of petition under Section 4(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, takes away the jurisdiction that conferred on the Rent Controller in a petition filed under Section 10 of the Act, subsequent to filing of petition under Section 4(1) of the Act?. = The fixation of fair rent is only an incidental issue of the matter and therefore the same is of no avail and would not impact the eviction of the tenant if the landlord has been found to be in need of the premises and the tenant is found to have own premises as well as the tenant having defaulted in payment of rents as has been found on all three grounds in the present matter. 30. In view of the above, we hold in the present reference that, the Rent controller Court would continue to have jurisdiction, in spite of fixation of fair rent of the premises at any amount more than Rs.3,500/-, if the rent of the premises when eviction proceedings were filed was less than Rs.3,500/-