Allowed

Golla Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy v. Golla Venkata Subbarao

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Nov 2019CRP/2811/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application to extend time for cross-examination. The trial court dismissed the extension due to the counsel's erroneous belief that cross-examination was complete. The High Court, applying the principle that parties should not suffer for counsel's fault, set aside the impugned order without notice and directed the tr

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the petition for extension of time was set aside. The trial court was directed to fix a date for the cross-examination of D.W.1. No order as to costs. Pending interlocuto

Golla Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2811 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The challenge, in the Civil Revision Petition, is to the order dated 27.08.2019, in I.A.No.942 of 2019 in O.S.No.139 of 2012 passed by learned V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, whereby and whereunder learned Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 148 of CPC, to extend time for 10 days to produce D.W.1 (D4) for crossexamination.

¶4

2. O.S.No.139 of 2012 is a money suit and defendants are contesting the suit. While so, D4 was examined as D.W.1 and when the matter was coming up for cross-examination, the Court passed an order on 04.06.2019 to produce D.W.1 (D4) for cross-examination on 03.07.2019. Since he was absent, it appears his evidence was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.942 of 2019 under Section 151 of CPC on 13.08.2019 to reopen the matter for the purpose of crossexamination of petitioner/D4. The said petition was allowed on 13.08.2019 on payment of costs of Rs.300/- to other side and on the condition that the petitioner shall be available for cross-examination on 27.08.2019. However, on 27.08.2019 the petitioner/D4 was not present, instead D3 was present in the Court. Therefore, I.A. /2019 was filed under Section 148 of CPC seeking extension of time of 10 days for production of D.W.1 for cross-examination. The said

¶5

¶6

petition was dismissed on 27.08.2019. However, the said order was passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.942 of 2019 itself. Hence, the present CRP is filed by the petitioner/D4 aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2019.

¶7

Having regard to the nature of the impugned order, and also the fact that the suit is an old one of the year 2012, this Court finds it not expedient to order notice to the respondents to hear them as it would further delay the matter. Hence, this CRP is disposed of at the admission stage. The reason shown by the petitioners/D3 and D4 for non-appearance of D4(DW1) on 27.08.2019 was that their counsel was under wrong impression that D.W.1's cross-examination was already over and the matter was coming up for evidence of D3 and therefore, he instructed D3 to be present in the Court on 27.08.2019 instead of D.W.1. Hence, D3 was present in Court. Of course, this explanation was not found favour with the trial Court. Be that it may, it is trite law that for the fault of the Court or an advocate, the party shall not be made to suffer ( Actus curiae neminem gravabit ) .

¶8

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the CRP can be allowed and the impugned order can be set aside so as to give an opportunity to the petitioners/D3 and D4 to contest the suit and vindicate their defence stand.

¶9

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 27.08.2019 in I.A.No.942 of 2019 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to fix a date for cross-examination of

¶10

¶11

D.W.1, on which date, D.W.1 shall attend Court without fail and the other side can cross-examine him. Thereafter, the further evidence of the defendants shall be completed expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel, Interlocutory Application petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶13

¶14

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶15

Date: 08.11.2019. MS

Golla Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy v. Golla Venkata Subbarao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golla Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy v. Golla Venkata Subbarao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadipudi Tirumala Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Subbarayudu, Vs The Vice-Chairman 8s Managing Director

Vandrasi Krishna Murthy, Visakhapatnam Vs Smt. Vandrasi Radha, Visakhapatnam and Ano

Paidimaria Kamalamma Vs K Mohan Rao

Chavvakula Rajesh, Ysr Kadapa Dist Vs Gm, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and 3 Others

Doddoju Ankatala Anuradha Vs Pola Bhaskar