Dismissed

Polisetty Andalamma v. Yarramsetti Punyavathi

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Dec 2021CRP/984/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the trial court’s order dismissing an application to recall a witness and bring documents as evidence. The revision was dismissed because the affidavit offered no explanation for the delay in producing the documents or their relevance to the suit, and the trial court’s order required no interference.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Polisetty Andalamma Vs Yarramsetti Punyavathi — Partition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

C.R.P.No.984 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners are defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No.1 of 2016 in the Court of X Additional District Judge, Narsapur. The suit had been filed for partition of the suit schedule properties.

¶5

After the pleadings have been completed, the trial was conducted in the suit. After closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, DW.1 was examined and cross-examined. Thereafter, when the matter was coming up for examination of DW.2, the petitioners herein had filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 for recalling DW.1 and for being permitted to bring certain documents as evidence. This application was dismissed by an order dated 08.03.2019. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶6

Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff on account of production of these documents or further examination of DW.1. He further submits that there would be no delay in the suit proceedings, as DW.2 had not yet been examined. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the application should have been allowed in the interest of justice and proper adjudication of the suit.

¶7

Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the trial Court had dismissed the application as no reasons were given explaining the delay in filing the said documents and as to the relevancy of these documents.

¶8

A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application shows that the petitioner had merely stated that these documents were found

¶9

RRR,J 2 C.R.P.No.984 of 2019

¶10

recently and are therefore being filed. There is no explanation as to how these documents are relevant for the case and why these documents were not produced earlier except stating that they were found recently.

¶11

In the circumstances, the order of the trial Court cannot be faulted nor would require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

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

¶13

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶14

9^th December, 2021 Js.

¶15

RRR,J 3 C.R.P.No.984 of 2019

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶17

C.R.P.No.984 of 2019

¶18

9^th December, 2021

¶19

Js.

Polisetty Andalamma v. Yarramsetti Punyavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polisetty Andalamma v. Yarramsetti Punyavathi

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

M.Murthaiah Vs Vajje Subbalakshmi

Vummethala Krishna Mohan, Hyd Vs Vummethala Madhu Mohan, Guntur Dist and 4 Others

Smt.Buridi Krishnaveni Vs Mudunnuru Bhavani

Lekkala Ananda Rao Vs Pedada Venkata Ramana

Bollu Veera Raghavaiah Chowdary Vs Madyanapu Ramakrishna Das

Bollu Venkata Siva Satyanarayana Vs Madhyanapu Ramakrishna Das