Allowed

Bada Ramadasu v. Duvvada Prabhakar Chodary (Died)

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Aug 2019CRP/1431/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed civil revision petitions filed by a plaintiff challenging an order dismissing petitions to reopen evidence. The Court directed the trial court to allow the plaintiff to produce a registered settlement deed and certified boundary recitals, deeming them essential for adjudication despite a delay explained by the plaintiff's illiteracy and recent discovery of documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitions allowed with costs; petitioner directed to adduce evidence within one week.

Bada Ramadasu Vs Duvvada Prabhakar Chodary (Died) — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

CMR, J. C.R.P.Nos.1213, 1274 & 1431 of 2019

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶4

Civil Revision Petition Nos.1213, 1274 and 1431 of 2019

¶5

COMMON ORDER :

¶6

These three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the common order dated 02.03.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.745, 746 and 747 of 2018 in O.S.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, Srikakulam District, whereby the learned Junior Civil Judge has dismissed all the three petitions filed for reopen of the evidence of the plaintiff, recall of PW.1 and produce additional documents as additional evidence, by a common order.

¶7

Since these three Civil Revision Petitions arose out of a common order, they are taken-up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶8

Facts germane to dispose of these Civil Revision Petitions may, briefly, be stated as follows:

¶9

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the Suit in O.S.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, Srikakulam District. The Suit was filed for injunction simpliciter against the defendants. The trial of the Suit was completed and when the Suit is posted for arguments, the plaintiff has filed the above three petitions under Section 151 CPC and Order VIII Rule 14(3) CPC to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and to recall the plaintiff for further evidence and seeking leave of the Court to produce certain additional documents. The petitioner has averred in the said three petitions that he is an illiterate and he could not secure the said documents during the course of trial

¶10

¶11

CMR, J. C.R.P.Nos.1213, 1274 & 1431 of 2019

¶12

and only before five days of filing the petitions, that he could secure the said documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar and one document was traced in his house after thorough search. The said documents are essential to substantiate his case and thereby prayed to reopen his evidence and to recall him for further evidence and to permit him to produce the said additional documents as evidence on his behalf.

¶13

The said three petitions are resisted by the defendants on the ground that they have clearly disputed the claim of the petitioner in their written statement by positively asserting their right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and that both the parties have also adduced evidence to establish their respective claims during the course of trial. The petitioner is not an illiterate and he is an intelligent man. The petitioner did not refer the said documents in his pleadings and also in his evidence and that petitioner is not a party to the said documents. Therefore, the said petitions are not maintainable and thereby prayed to dismiss all the petitions.

¶14

After hearing both the parties, the learned Junior Civil Judge has dismissed the said three petitions by the impugned common order.

¶15

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present three Civil Revision Petitions.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

¶18

CMR, J. C.R.P.Nos.1213, 1274 & 1431 of 2019

¶19

As can be seen from the pleadings, the petitioner-plaintiff relied on a registered Will dated 15.02.2005 said to have been executed by his mother to prove his claim over the suit schedule property. Therefore, to prove the title of his mother, who is the executant of the said Will, he now intends to produce the registered settlement deed in the name of his mother in respect of the suit schedule property. He also intends to rely on the sale deeds of the adjoining landowners to show that the petitioner herein is shown as the owner of the suit schedule property in the schedule of their sale deeds.

¶20

The petitioner seeks to explain that as he is an illiterate that he could not produce the said documents at the earliest point of time during the course of trial. As he has obtained certified copies of the sale deeds of the adjoining landowners subsequently during the course of trial and as the original registered settlement deed was traced recently after thorough search in his house, that he could not produce the said documents at the time of adducing his evidence during the course of trial.

¶21

As the petitioner is relying on the registered Will dated 15.02.2005 said to have been executed by his mother to prove his right over the suit schedule property and as the same is now in dispute in the Suit, he has to necessarily produce the settlement deed and on the basis of which his mother got title to the suit schedule property. So, it is undoubtedly an essential document which is required for the purpose of effective

¶22

¶23

CMR, J. C.R.P.Nos.1213, 1274 & 1431 of 2019

¶24

adjudication of the dispute involved in the Suit. As the plaintiff has explained the delay stating that the said document was traced recently after thorough search in his house, this Court is of the considered view that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to adduce evidence by producing the said document, particularly as it is essential for effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the Suit.

¶25

As he intends to rely on the boundary recitals of his adjoining landowners to show that they have also shown him as the owner of the suit schedule property which is adjacent to their land, those documents are also relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved in the Suit. The evidentiary value of the said boundary recitals, however, is a matter of appreciation of evidence in the final adjudication of the Suit. As those documents relate to third parties, certainly the petitioner cannot have possession of the same. So, he has applied for certified copies of the said documents and as such, the delay has taken place. Therefore, when the said documents are relevant and essential for effective adjudication of all the controversial issues involved in the Suit, an opportunity is to be given to the petitioner to adduce the said evidence.

¶26

So, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, all the three Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned common order dated 02.03.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.745, 746 and 747 of 2018 in O.S.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, Srikakulam District. The

¶27

¶28

CMR, J. C.R.P.Nos.1213, 1274 & 1431 of 2019

¶29

petitions in I.A.Nos.745, 746 and 747 of 2018 in O.S.No.61 of 2007 are allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- each (total Rs.3,000/-) in the three petitions payable by the petitioner to the defendants. The petitioner shall immediately adduce his evidence and produce the said documents within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without seeking any adjournment. No costs.

¶30

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶32

Date:02.08.2019. cs

Bada Ramadasu v. Duvvada Prabhakar Chodary (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bada Ramadasu v. Duvvada Prabhakar Chodary (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N a Ramulu Vs Apsrtc

K. Siva Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalakonda Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Veeraiah and Anr. Vs State of a.P., through Mahila P.S. and Anr.

Bada Ramadasu Vs Duvvada Prabhakar Chowdary (Died)

Hanumanthu Saraswathi Vs Hanumanthu Mahalakshmi