The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order refusing leave to produce documents in a suit for recovery. The Court held the High Court has no jurisdiction under Article 227 as the lower court order did not suffer from perversity.
No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
Civil Revision Petition No.3481 of 2019
ORDER:
2
present application under the above said provision of law. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.443 of 2019 reveals that except stating that the documents are useful to the defendants for better adjudication of the dispute, the defendants did not assign any other reason for not filing the said documents along with the written statement, nor they stated the relevancy of the said documents with the case on hand. In fact the learned Judge, after considering the said aspects and by assigning cogent and convincing reasons, dismissed the application filed by the defendants/petitioners herein. It is a settled and well established principle of law that unless the order impugned suffers from patent perversity or jurisdictional error, the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is impermissible. This Court does not find any such contingencies in the case on hand.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J
02.12.2019 MP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the dismissal of an application to produce documents later under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC.
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the application without finding patent perversity or jurisdictional error in its order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners
Respondent
A.V.Sesha Sai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
