Allowed

Yerra Appayya, v. Yerra Padmanabham

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2023CRP/540/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in civil revision, set aside a lower court order rejecting an application to admit documents received from a connected suit. The court allowed the petition to reopen evidence and recall a deposed witness (DW-1) in a possession dispute between relatives.

What did the court decide?

Set aside orders dismissing IA No.208, 209, 210 of 2019; directed lower court to admit documents and recall DW-1 in O.S.No.3 of 2013.

Yerra Appayya, Vs Yerra Padmanabham — Partition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.312, 540 & 769 of 2021

¶3

Between:

¶4

Yerra Appayya,, S/o. Late Shymo, Hindu, by ST Caste, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Agriculturalist, R/o. Shalaputtuga Village and Post, Kaviti Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

Yerra Padmanabham,, S/o. Late Yendu, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Agriculturalist, R/o. Shalaputtuga Village and Post, Kaviti Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent

¶9

...Respondent : Smt A. Padma : -

¶10

COMMON ORDER:-

¶11

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ichapuram, dated 24-10-2019 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner herein seeking to reopen the evidence of defendant, to receive the documents, and recall of the DW-1.

¶12

The petitioner submits that the respondent/plaintiff

¶13

filed suit in O.S.No.3 of 2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ichapuram, against the petitioner herein restraining them from

¶14

¶15

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Petitioner further states that in the said suit she had filed her written statement contending that the suit properties are in her absolute possession and enjoyment and that the government officials have also issued title deed and pattadar pass books. In order to prove his case, the petitioner sought to bring on record the pattadar pass books and the title deeds. Since the said documents were filed in a connected case in O.S. No.4 of 2012, upon receipt of the same on 15-07-2016 from the concerned Court, the petition under Or. XIX R.1 of CPC has been filed. Along with the said I.A., the petitioner has also filed two separate applications in IA.Nos.209 & 210 of 2019, to reopen the evidence of DW-1 and recall of DW-1. The plaintiff has filed his counter affidavit denying the petition averments. The learned Judge through a common order dismissed the said applications.

¶16

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

¶17

Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice is served on the respondent, the respondent did not enter his appearance.

¶18

Perused the record. The trial Judge dismissed the applications of the petitioner on the ground that the subject

¶19

¶20

documents were supposed to have been filed along with the written statement, however, as the same were not filed along with the written statement, they cannot be allowed to be brought on record now. He further observed that the petitioner did not assign any reason in the written statement for not filing the same along with the written statement.

¶21

As noted from the pleadings in the subject I.A.s, the petitioner herein has clearly stated that the subject documents were filed in a connected case and immediately upon receipt of the same from the Court, the same have been filed in the present suit through the present application. The said fact was not denied by the respondents either. The trial Judge, however dismissed the application on the sole ground that the factum of the subject documents being filed in the connected case was not mentioned in the written statement.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the subject documents, as stated by the petitioner were filed in another connected suit, which factum is not denied by the respondents, the learned trial Judge should have considered the case of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that, in the light of the submission of the petitioner that the subject documents,

¶23

¶24

which were not in his possession earlier, were returned to him on 15-07-2019 by the Court below, and which is not disputed by the respondent’s herein, the present Revision Petitions are required to be allowed, setting aside the orders dated 24-10-2019, in I.A.Nos.208, 209 and 210 of 2019 in O.S.No.3 of 2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ichapuram. The Court below is directed to receive the documents filed by the petitioner in I.A. No.210 of 2019 by reopening the evidence of DW-1 and recalling the DW-1.

¶25

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition Nos.312, 540

¶26

& 769 of 2021 are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶28

____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶29

Date: 22.12.2023 MVK

¶30

Note:CC by 27.12.2023 B/o. MVK

¶31

¶32

142

¶33

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶34

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 312, 540 & 769 of 2021

¶35

Date: 22.12.2023

¶36

Note:CC by 27.12.2023 B/o. MVK

Yerra Appayya, v. Yerra Padmanabham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yerra Appayya, v. Yerra Padmanabham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Katralapalli Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Vignam Vidyalayam

Thalaceeru. Raghavendra Rao Vs Manavarthy. Srinivasa Rao

Kasukurthi Rajeswari Vs Kommareddy Srinivasa Reddy

Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church Vs Rev Stephen Samuel Vikranth

Yerra Appayya, Vs Yerra Padmanabham

Yerra Appayya, Vs Yerra Padmanabham