Dismissed

Dukka China Apparao v. Mutchi Appayyamma

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2019CRP/7219/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions filed to reopen evidence for cross-examination. The Court found gross negligence and suppression of facts by the petitioner regarding non-compliance with trial court conditions. Consequently, the impugned orders dismissing the intra-court petitions were confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Both the Civil Revision Petitions dismissed confirming the orders of learned trial Judge. No costs.

Dukka China Apparao Vs Mutchi Appayyamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NoS.7219 & 7240 OF 2018

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

CRP No.7219 of 2018 is directed against order, dated 29.10.2018, in I.A.No.957 of 2018 in O.S.No.743 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

¶5

CRP No.7240 of 2018 is directed against order in I.A.No.956 of 2018 in the same suit, of the same date and on the file of the same Court.

¶6

The plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed I.A.No.956 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the matter to enable him to cross-examine D.W.1. He also filed I.A.No.957 of 2018, under Order-XVIII, Rule-17 CPC, to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination.

¶7

The reason assigned, as seen from the affidavit of the petitioner filed in the lower court, in both the petitions, is that, when the suit was posted for cross-examination, on his behalf, of D.W.1, on account of the absence of his Advocate, who was out of station, and his inability to reach the Court on time, it was closed, treating it as, ‘nil’, and thereafter, the suit was posted to 06.08.2018 for further evidence of the respondents(defendants). Stating that there was no laches or willful default on his part, he requested to reopen the evidence of D.W.1 and permit him to cross-examine. Learned trial Judge appears to have allowed both the petitions (since no copy of such order is filed in both these revision petitions) subject to certain terms including payment of costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). But, on account of the failure to comply a part of condition so imposed, by an order dated 28.10.2018, both these petitions were dismissed.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner. None represented the respondent, though served notice.

¶9

MVR,J CRP Nos.7219 & 7240 of 2018

¶10

¶11

Now, the point for determination is-“Whether dismissal of these petitions on account of non-compliance of directions of the trial Court is proper and if an opportunity be given to the petitioners?

¶12

POINT: -

¶13

As seen from the material made available in these revision petitions, the order so passed by the learned trial Judge, cannot be found fault with. Negligence on the part of the petitioner is writ large in proceeding with the matter even in this Court. The purported challenge in both these revision petitions is the order dated 28.10.2018 in both the petitions. Apparently, earlier to 28.10.2018, an order was passed in both these petitions by the learned trial Judge, allowing these petitions, giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine D.W.1, subject to certain terms. A copy of the order so passed, which should have been complied on 29.10.2018, is not filed, in both the revision petitions. As seen from the affidavit filed in the trial Court by the petitioners, there is not even a reference as to the date when the suit was posted for cross-examination of D.W.1 by the petitioner. 06.08.2018, referred to in his affidavit, is the date, on which further evidence on behalf of the defendants was to be let in, as per orders of the trial Court. The relevant portion in Para-2 of the affidavit of the petitioner filed in the trial Court is left blank.

¶14

When these circumstances are taken into consideration, they clearly demonstrate gross negligence on the part of the petitioner, in proceeding on with the matter. Even if further opportunity is given to the petitioner, in the circumstances, it is difficult to perceive that he would proceed on with crossexamination of D.W.1. Therefore, in the light of circumstances observed in these civil revision petitions, and what is discussed above, it is not desirable that both these petitions be considered and to allow. Necessarily they have to

¶15

MVR,J CRP Nos.7219 & 7240 of 2018

¶16

¶17

be dismissed. Obviously, the petitioner suppressed the conditions so imposed in the trial court, to gain favourable orders from this Court, at least at the threshold. This conduct on the part of the petitioner shall never be encouraged.

¶18

In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, confirming the orders of learned trial Judge, dated 29.10.2018, in I.A.Nos.957 and 956 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. No costs.

¶19

As sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

Interim Orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

¶21

_______________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

¶22

Dt: 17.12.2019. RRR

¶23

MVR,J CRP Nos.7219 & 7240 of 2018

¶24

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

¶26

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 7219 & 7240 of 2018

¶27

DATE: 17-12-2019

¶28

RRR

Dukka China Apparao v. Mutchi Appayyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dukka China Apparao v. Mutchi Appayyamma

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

Ngos Housing Building Socieity Vs a.S.Maqbool

Konda Hanuman Reddy at Peda Hanuma Reddy Vs Vuyyuru Malleswari

Dasari Roop Kiran Kumar, Vs Dasari Rambabu

Intisundaraiah Vs Marri Santhi Karuna Kumar

M v S R Mohan, Spsr Nellore Dist Vs K Sujana, Spsr Nellore Dist and 3 Others

Inti Sundraiah Vs Marri Santhi Karuna Kumar