THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.Nos.5806 and 5807 of 2009 Date: 04-12-2009 C.R.P.No.5806 of 2009: Between M/s. Ushodaya Publications Private Limited, Hyderabad-82, Rep. By their Authorized Signatory Mr. V.Ratna Kumar … Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff and 1. Sri Valluru Venkata Ramakrishna and another … Respondents/Respondents/Defendants C.R.P.No.5807 of 2009: Between M/s. Ushodaya Publications Private Limited, Hyderabad-82, Rep. By their Authorized Signatory Mr. V.Ratna Kumar … Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff and 1. Sri M.Appa Rao and another … Respondents/Respondents/Defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.Nos.5806 and 5807 of 2009 Oral Common Order: Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned Counsel, representing Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 1 in both the revisions, respectively. 2. Both the revisions are connected and inter-twined, therefore I feel it expedient to dispose of these two revisions by this common order. 3. C.R.P.No.5806 of 2009 is directed against the order and decree, dated 18-11-2009, passed by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.755 of 2009 in O.S.No.667 of 2008, filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 and Order VII, Rule 11 read with Order VII, Rules 6-A(4) and 6-C of CPC, seeking to reject the counter claim of respondent No.2 (defendant No.2) in the suit; whereas C.R.P.No.5807 of 2009 is directed against the order and decree, dated 18-11-2009, passed by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.86 of 2009 in O.S.No.667 of 2008, filed by the petitioner herein under Order VIII, Rule 6(C) and Section 151 of CPC, seeking to exclude the counter claim raised by respondent No.1 (defendant No.2) in the suit. 4. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants 1 and 2/2 and 1, respectively, in the suit before the Court below. 5. The suit was filed for specific performance. There is no dispute with regard to the maintainability of the suit in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction. Subsequently, written statement has been filed along with a counter-claim. It appears that certain amount towards counter-claim was valued at a particular rate, subsequently the same has been modified. Even after the modification, the contention of the plaintiff was that the counter- claim of defendant No.2 could not be maintained on account of the same being not properly valued. This Court is not going into the details of the controversy on these aspects. 6. Be that as it may, the plaintiff filed two applications I.A.Nos.755 and 86 of 2009 seeking the relief of -- to reject the counter claim and to exclude the counter claim raised by defendant No.2 in the suit, respectively. The Court below had dismissed the application I.A.No.86 of 2009 on the ground among other grounds that since the application I.A.No.755 of 2009 filed was already dismissed on merits and further, since the said I.A., was also of the same nature, the application I.A.No.86 of 2009 also was liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same was dismissed. 7. Therefore, it is imperative for this Court to look into the order passed in the application I.A.No.755 of 2009 rather than the order passed in the application I.A.No.86 of 2009. At para 14 of the order passed in I.A.No.755 of 2009, the Court below had given different dates, on which the matter stood adjourned from time to time. There is some controversy again as to the various dates mentioned by the Court below in the order. Even that question is not being considered by this Court at this stage. 8. But, what is necessary to be looked into is -- the eventual order passed by the Court below, which is as under: “14. … … … But the petitioner has not shown interest in prosecuting this petition. It is necessary to decide this petition on merits inspite of dismissing this petition for default as counters filed by the petitioner on record and respondent No.2 submitted arguments. In the result, the petition is dismissed, without costs.” 9. From the above, it is abundantly clear that it was the intention of the Court below not to dismiss the application I.A.No.755 of 2009 for default and instead, it felt extremely expedient to dispose of the said I.A., on merits on account of the fact that already the other side has filed counters and submitted arguments. But, the surprising aspect to be noticed is that the said application I.A.No.755 of 2009 was simply dismissed. 10. When it was the specific and explicit intention of the Court below to dispose of the matter on merits, the Court below ought to have disposed of the matter on merits referring to the relevant contentions of both the parties and also to the relevant facts and the provisions of law and dispose of the same. In my view, such disposal would be a disposal on merits. 11. But, instead, the Court below has simply dismissed the application I.A.No.755 of 2009 contrary to its own intention not to dismiss the said I.A., for default. 12. In this connection, I am of the view that the views of the Court below are totally incompatible for its own reason. This shows total non-application of mind by the Court below. In fact, the courts of the first instance are expected to deal with the matters, particularly while considering the matters like this, more particularly at the interlocutory stage, where serious contentions are raised both on questions of fact and law. That is basically lacking in the impugned order. 13. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter nor expressing any view either way, the matter is remitted back to the Court below to dispose of the applications I.A.Nos.755 and 86 of 2009 on merits, as was intended and as is being directed by this Court, after taking into consideration all the material placed before it and referring to the counters, the other pleadings or any other material pressed into service by either party, subject to relevancy and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by any of the observations made either by the Court below earlier or by this Court, with utmost expedition, if necessary on priority basis, subject to cooperation by both the parties. 14. Accordingly, the impugned orders, dated 18-11-2009, in I.A.Nos.755 and 86 of 2009, passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 15. In the result, both the revisions are allowed, at the stage of admission, to the extent indicated above. No costs. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 04th December, 2009. Note:- Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) Ak