Dismissed

G.V.G. Jamuna Rani v. Sade Manga Tayaru

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Oct 2019CRP/2928/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send a promissory note for expert opinion. The court held that the party had never pleaded this stance in the written statement and thus lacked foundation for the plea, rejecting the revision as the impugned order did not suffer jurisdictional error.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending closed.

G.V.G. Jamuna Rani Vs Sade Manga… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2928 of 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Defendant in O.S. No.1585 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, is the petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶4

The respondent herein instituted the suit as long back as in the year 2015 and the defendant-petitioner herein also filed written statement, resisting the said plaint and the averments contained therein. In the said suit, the present I.A. No.621 of 2019 came to be filed in the year 2019 under the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, praying the Court to send Ex.A.1-promissory note to an expert to render opinion with regard to the particular aspects to the amount column. Resisting the said application, a counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, by way of the order under challenge, dismissed the said application.

¶5

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is erroneous and contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that had the application been allowed by the Court below, the same would help the Court below to arrive at a just conclusion in the matter. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that in the event of allowing the application, the same will not prejudice the interest of the other side.

¶6

¶7

A copy of the written statement filed by the defendantpetitioner herein is placed on record along with the present revision as a material paper. As rightly observed by the Court below, the stand now sought to be pleaded in the present application, obviously was never taken by the defendant-petitioner herein either in the written statement or in the reply notice. It is also required to be noted that the defendantpetitioner herein earlier filed a similar application before the Court below under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Senior Civil Judge also recorded a finding that the defendant did not lay any foundation for the plea now sought to be raised. It is a settled and wellestablished principle of law that any amount of evidence without being supported by the pleadings is of no significance. It is also stated that now the suit stood posted for judgment on 23.10.2019. It is a settled and well-established principle of law that unless the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error or patent perversity, the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is impermissible.

¶8

For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is

¶9

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶12

Date: 21.10.2019 siva

¶13

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶15

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2928 of 2019

¶16

Date: 21.10.2019

¶17

siva

G.V.G. Jamuna Rani v. Sade Manga Tayaru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.V.G. Jamuna Rani v. Sade Manga Tayaru

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

Goduguluri Rangaiah, Krishna Dist. and 18 Others Vs Vijaya Kumar, I.a.S., Hyd

Sri Vaziuddin Ahmed Siddiqui Vs Kanumuru Chandra Sekhar

Dr P N v Prasad Vs Sri. D Bhaskara Rao

M/s Kokila Wines (G.S1.No. PR/48/2017-19) Vs the State of Ap

Dr Rednam Ahikrishna Vs the State of Ap

Madireddy Ganga Vara Lakshmi Vs the State of Ap