Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    In The Court of The Honourable Sienior Civil Judge at Rayachoty

    Uploaded by

    Hemeswarareddy Karimireddy
    The respondent files a counter to the petitioners' application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree granted by the court. The respondent argues that (1) the petition is unjust and not maintainable, (2) the petitioners were properly served but failed to file a written statement within the deadline, and (3) the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for setting aside the decree or demonstrated any injustice from the division of the property. The respondent requests that the petition be dismissed with costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    In The Court of The Honourable Sienior Civil Judge at Rayachoty

    Uploaded by

    Hemeswarareddy Karimireddy
    141 views4 pages
    The respondent files a counter to the petitioners' application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree granted by the court. The respondent argues that (1) the petition is unjust and not maintainable, (2) the petitioners were properly served but failed to file a written statement within the deadline, and (3) the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for setting aside the decree or demonstrated any injustice from the division of the property. The respondent requests that the petition be dismissed with costs.

    Original Title

    IN THE COURT OF THE HONOURABLE SIENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT RAYACHOTY.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent files a counter to the petitioners' application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree granted by the court. The respondent argues that (1) the petition is unjust and not maintainable, (2) the petitioners were properly served but failed to file a written statement within the deadline, and (3) the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for setting aside the decree or demonstrated any injustice from the division of the property. The respondent requests that the petition be dismissed with costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    141 views4 pages

    In The Court of The Honourable Sienior Civil Judge at Rayachoty

    Uploaded by

    Hemeswarareddy Karimireddy
    The respondent files a counter to the petitioners' application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree granted by the court. The respondent argues that (1) the petition is unjust and not maintainable, (2) the petitioners were properly served but failed to file a written statement within the deadline, and (3) the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for setting aside the decree or demonstrated any injustice from the division of the property. The respondent requests that the petition be dismissed with costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    IN THE COURT OF THE HONOURABLE SIENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

    RAYACHOTY
    I.A No.192/2018
    In
    O.S No.4/2017
    G. Nagamma and other ... Petitioners/Defendants

    Vs.

    Kethineni Lakshmi Devamma ... Respondent/plaintiff

    COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


    PLAINTIFF

    1. This petition is unjust and not maintainable either in law or


    on facts.

    2. The petitioners are put to strict proof on all the allegations


    made in the petition which are not expressly admitted herein by this
    respondent/plaintiff.

    3. The suit summon were served on the petitioners and that the
    petitioners engaged their Advocate. The Honourable Court was pleased
    to grant lot of time to the petitioners for filing their written statement in
    this suit upto 20-042017. The petitioners could not file their written
    statement even after completion of 90 days dead line. Thereafter the
    Honourable Court was pleased to call the petitioners absent on 20-04-
    2017 and set them exparte on 20-04-2017. The Honourable Court was
    pleased to examine PW1 and mark Ex.A-1, A-3 and pass decree and
    judgment basing on Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 in favour of plaintiff. The documents
    Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 are registered partition deeds specifying the share of
    the father of this respondent/plaintiff and the defendants. The document
    Ex.A-3 being the Adangal showing the possession of the father of the
    plaintiff and the defendants over the suit property.

    4. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and second


    defendant is the younger sister of the plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff is
    not knocking away the legitimate share of the petitioners. The
    Honourable Court decree is not for taking away entire suit property by
    the respondent/plaintiff. The written statement filed by the
    petitioners/defendants is not showing any in equality, discrepancy,
    illegality or prejudice to the defendants by virtue of preliminary decree
    :: 2 ::

    passed by the Honourable Court granting of the division of the suit


    property into three shares for allotting one such, separated share to the
    plaintiff and remaining two shares to the petitioners/defendants. The
    preliminary decree granted by the Honourable Court is not depriving of
    and not preventing the defendants from getting two equal shares to the
    defendants and one such share to the plaintiff by dividing the suit
    property into three equal shares.

    5. The petitioners are submitting the cause of ill-health of


    second defendant who is aged about 62 years and that the first
    defendant being the mother of the plaintiff is aged about 85 years and
    that she could not suffer from any ill-health on 31-07-2017 or earlier upto
    now. The petitioners did not file any medical certificate for showing ill-
    health of the second petitioner on 31-07-2017 or earlier upto now. The
    first defendant who is doing well and not suffering from any ill-health
    should have come to the Honourable court with their written statement
    on or before 31-07-2017 for filing their written statement in the
    Honourable court. The petitioners did not file their written statement in
    0.S.No.4/2017 since the defendants did not oppose the partition of the
    suit property into three shares and allot their separated equitable shares
    to them. The exparte preliminary decree of the Honourable Court is 100%
    justified and according to the procedure established by law. The
    petitioners did not plead in this petition by alleging that the preliminary
    decree was taken by the plaintiff by playing fraudulent game and by
    making false representation to the Honourable Court for getting away
    the legitimate share of the plaintiff as well as remaining two shares of the
    defendants by violating the provisions of Sections 8 and 29-A of Hindu
    Succession Act of 1956.

    6. The petitioners show sufficient cause for not preferring this


    application within the period of 30 days. The applicant was misled by an
    order or practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or
    computing the prescribed period of limitation may be sufficient cause
    within the meaning of this section. There is no order or judgment of the
    Honourable A.P. High Court in this suit O.S.No.4/2017. So the petitioners
    are not mislead in ascertaining or computing the period of limitation. The
    cause mentioned by the petitioners is by showing the ill-health of the
    :: 3 ::

    second defendant is not sufficient cause for preferring this set-aside


    exparte, preliminary decree.

    7. The petitioners filed this false petition with false intention


    since there is no unjustice to the petitioners in the preliminary decree
    passed by the Honourable court. There is no sufficient cause shown by
    the petitioners. There are no merits in this petition. Some third parties
    i.e. the dayadies of the Petitioners misled the petitioners to file this
    petition for depriving the separated shares of the plaintiff and
    defendants continuously pending in the court without mental peace with
    agony and lot of litigation expenses. Hence, the petitioners are not
    entitled for preferring the petition for setting aside exparte preliminary
    decree for partition of suit property into three shares and allot one such
    separated share to the respondent/plaintiff and other two share to the
    defendants.

    8. Therefore the respondent/plaintiff prays that the Honourable


    Court may be pleased to dismiss this false petition with costs of
    Rs.2,000/- in the interest of justice.

    I verify and states that the above stated facts are true to the best of
    my knowledge information and belief and signed this at Kadapa on 23rd
    day of July, 2018.

    ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF


    IN THE COURT OF THE
    HONOURABLE SIENIOR CIVIL
    JUDGE AT RAYACHOTY
    I.A No.192/2018
    In
    O.S No.4/2017
    G. Nagamma and other

    ... Petitioners/Defendants
    Vs.

    Kethineni Lakshmi Devamma

    ... Respondent/plaintiff

    COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF


    OF THE RESPONDENT
    PLAINTIFF

    Filed by:

    Sri. K. Venkata Reddy, B.Com., B.L.,


    ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT,
    Kadapa

    You might also like