Allowed

Thuvvapalli Mahaboob Basha v. Pathan Mahaboob Chand

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Aug 2023CRP/1683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order disposes of a Civil Revision Petition regarding the dismissal of a petition to condone delay in filing documents. The High Court, reviewing the record, held that the unregistered partition deed dated 17.05.1989 (Schedule Item No.12) vital to the defense should be permitted by the trial court, dismissing other documents. It directed the trial court to receive the specific deed subje

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are directed to produce the original unregistered partition deed dated 17.05.1989 mentioned at S.I.No.l2 in the schedule, subject to proof and relevance.

Thuvvapalli Mahaboob Basha Vs Pathan Mahaboob Chand — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

■f-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

•A
■ fei®

¶6

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1683 of 2023

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the orders in I.A.No.398/2023 in O.S.No.82/2015 dated 13-04-2023 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Thuvvapalli Mahaboob Basha, S/o.Syed Saheb, Aged about 35 years, ^b.D.No.4/ 192, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶11

.Thuvvapalli Hassain Bee, W/o.Syed Saheb, Aged about 66 years, R/o.D.No.4/ 192, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶12

Shaik Mahaboob Chand, W/o;Shaik Sha Valli, Aged about 45 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.D.No.4/192, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶13

Pathan Mahaboob Begum, W/o.Shaik Shavalli, Aged about 42 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.D.No.4/195, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶14

G.Gulsar Begum, W/o.Chinna Mohammad, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.3/217, Chintakunta Village and Post, Duvvur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶15

...Petitioners/ Petitioners/

¶16

Defendants No.1, 2, 3,4, 5 & 9

¶17

AND

¶18

Pathan Mahaboob Chand, Rep by her Power of Attorney Holder Patha Indhiyaz Khan (Died) LRs, the Plaintiffs No.1 to 11

¶19

Pathan Sathar Khan, S/o.lmam Khan, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Depender R/o.D.No.1/95, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydkur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶20

Patan Fayayaz Khan, S/o.Sathar Khan. Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.l/95-C, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydkur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶21

Patan Inthyaz Khan, S/o.Sathar Khan, Aged about 50 years, Occ; Business, R/o.D.No.l/95-A, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydkur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶22

Patan irshad, S/o.Sathar Khan, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.7/4015, Srinivas Nagar, Proddatur Town, YSR Kadapa District.

¶23

5. Patan Riyaz Khan, S/o.Sathar Khan, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.1/95, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydkur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶24

Patan Gayaz, S/o.Sathar Khan, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.1/95, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydkur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶25

Patan Hayath Khan, S/o.Sathar Khan, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/0.D.N0.I/95-A, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydkur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶26

Patan Firoz Khan, S/o.Sathar Khan, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.1/95, G.V.Sathram, Nandyalampet Village and Post, Mydkur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶27

9. Raja Ahammadari Mubbena, W/o.Mahaboob Basha, Aged about 40 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.D.No.4/180, Sanrkhapet Village, Khajipet Post and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶28

Patan Zarrena, W/o.Ameer Basha, Sathar Khan, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.D.No.5/553, Siva Nagar, Nellore Road, Badvel Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶29

Kakarawad Fathima, W/o.Hussain Valli, Aged about 30 years, Occ House Wife, R/o.D.No.8-4-300/3, Flat No.6308, Tower No.6, Vasavi Bhurvandavanma, Near Old Methar Factory, Mothi Nagar, Yerragdadda, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶30

Badveti Rama Lakshumaiah, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.4/477, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa City and District.

¶31

Chinreddi Narayana Reddy, S/o.Varada Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Occ Business, R/o.Varadhayapalli Village, Uppuguntapalli Post, Mydukur Mandal Kadapa District.

¶32

Chinreddy Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.Varada Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Bu^ness, R/o.Varadhayapalli Village, Uppuguntapalli Post, Mydukur Mandal YSR Kadapa District.

¶33

...Respondents/Plaintiffs/Defendants No.6 to 8

¶34

(The Respondents No.12 to 14 are not necessary parties to this Petition)

¶35

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶36

in th f '*5'’ /'PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to SXSl h Hn •" OSNo .82/2015 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P Nagendra Reddy

¶38

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S Arifullah

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

<5.

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶42

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶43

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.l683 of 2023

¶44

ORAL ORDER: '

¶45

This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur, in I.A.No.398 of 2023 in O.S.No.82 of 2015, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners herein (defendants 1 to 5 & 9 in the suit), under Order VIII Rule lA(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C., praying the Court to grant them leave to file certain documents by condoning the delay in filing thereof, was dismissed. 2. The aforesaid suit was filed by respondent Nos.l to 11 herein for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule properties, delivery of vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs and also for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. When the suit is at the stage of evidence, defendants 1 to 5 & 9 in the suit filed I.A.No.398 of 2023, stating that the documents enumerated at SI.Nos.l to 12 in the petition schedule, which are very vital to their case, could not be produced at the time of filing of written statement, as they could not be secured at that point of time, and now that those documents were secured, they may be granted leave to file them, by condoning the delay in filing thereof. The plaintiffs resisted the said petition.

¶46

¶47

1 C.R.P.No.1683 of KSR,.2023

¶48

'S.

¶49

by filing a counter. The trial Court observed that in the cross-examination of P.W.l, nothing was put forth with reference to the proposed documents and no reason was mentioned as to why those documents could not be secured at the time of filing of written statement or framing of issues and it was also not explained as to how the documents could now be secured. The trial Court opined that there was no diligence on the part of the petitioners and, accordingly, dismissed the petition, by the order under revision.

¶50

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record.

¶51

The suit is of the year 2015. Perusal of the record shows that the written statement of defendant Np.l was filed in the year 2019 and issues were framed in the year 2022. When the suit is at the stage of evidence, the petitioners filed the present petition seeking leave of the Court to produce the proposed documents. No doubt, the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the LA. is bereft of particulars as to why the proposed documents could not be secured at the time of filing of written statement and what were the efforts put forth by them initially to secure those documents. However, it is apparent from the written statement of defendant No.l that a reference has been made to unregistered partition deed dated 17.05.1989, which is listed at SI.No. 12 in the schedule of documents now the petitioners intend to produce, and it appears that the petitioners rely on the said document in support of their defence. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that

¶52

3 KSR,J C.R.P.No.1683 of 2023

¶53

the said document alone can be permitted to be filed by the petitioners, which course of action would meet the ends of justice. 5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to receive the document, viz., original unregistered partition deed dated 17.05.1989, mentioned at SI.No.l2 in the schedule appended to I.A.No.398 of 2023 in O.S.No.82 of 2015, subject to proof and relevance. 6. As a sequel; pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶54

SD/- S SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

2 One CC to qri'pIfYSR Kadapa District. t o I ? P Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Advocate [OPUCj TK sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/08/2023

ORDER

CRP.No.1683 of 2023

¶63

Al
S 2 5 SEP 2223 m

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

Thuvvapalli Mahaboob Basha v. Pathan Mahaboob Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thuvvapalli Mahaboob Basha v. Pathan Mahaboob Chand

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

Yenneti Durga Prasad at Durga Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ettapuram Kandathil Irshad at Irshad E.K Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhukke Govind Naik at Jumma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Hanuman Agro Industries Vs Gopal Krishna Dwivedi, I.A.S.

Onuoha Chukuwemka at Emmy N.Guessan at Koffin Harve Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Uthama Rama Chowdary Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh