Allowed

B.Venkatarathnam v. Smt. P.Ramanamma

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2024CRP/1000/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order dismissing an application to recall a witness in matrimonial proceedings. The Court held that the Trial Court failed to give reasons for its finding and remanded the matter for disposal with speaking orders.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; Trial Court order set aside; matter remanded for disposal with reasons.

B.Venkatarathnam Vs Smt. P.Ramanamma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY. THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶4

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1000 of 2024

¶5

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed against the Order passed in I.A.No.34/2024, in HMOP.No.36/2019, dated 26.02.2024 on the file of court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Tirupati District

¶6

Between:

¶7

B. Venkatarathnam, S/o Late ^ B.Pedda Venkataramaiah, Working as Assistant/Sharoff, Office of Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical SubDivision-ll), Administrative Building, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati Town, Tirupati District. ...Petitioner

¶8

Smt. P.Ramanamma, W/o B.Venkatarathnam, D.No.10-14A, Nakkalakunta, Basinikonda Village and Post, Madanapalle Mandal, Armamayya^District.

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶11

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to "STAY" all further proceedings in HMOP.No.36/2019^onthefileof Ld. Trial Court/ Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Tirupati District.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI JITENDRA KANYALUR

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MAHADEVA KANTHRiGALA

¶14

The Court made the following order:

¶15

APHC010160192024

¶16

0??

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶18

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶19

[3206]

¶20

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶23

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1000/2024

Potuuoon;

B.venkatarathnam

...PETITIONER

AND

Smt P Ramanamma ...RESPONDENT

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶30

1.JITENDRA KANYALUR

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶32

1.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶33

The Court made the following order:

¶34

The respondent herein moved H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2019 before^the

¶35

learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶36

Trial in the matter had commenced and PW.1 had been examined and cross-examined. At that stage, the petitioner herein, moved an application, bearing I.A.No.34 of 2024 for recalling^{PW.1.Hecontendedthat} cross- examination of the PW.1 could not be proceeded^{duetoabsenceofhis} counsel and that non cross-examination of PWM 'would r hie.ij-* inforoef

¶37

¶38

The Trial Court dismissed the said application on 26.02.2024 by stating “on perusal of affidavit along with petition there is no tenable grounds to allow this petition and hence this petition is dismissed”.

¶39

The said order does not disclose any reasons as to why the Trial Court had arrived at such a finding.

¶40

In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the Trial Court dated 26.02.2024 in I.A.No.34 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2019 and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for

¶41

disposal with reasons.

¶42

Needless to say, it%ould also be open to the respondent^tofile her counter in the 1.A.No.34 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2019. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shallstand

closed.

Sd/- B.CHITTI JOSEPH

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

I SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Tirupati^District. 2. One CC to Sri Jitendra Kanyalur, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Two CD Copies

psr RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/08/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.1000 of 2024

AN0«^^
ml:
5 0 9 SE? JO?!. to.
^ . Current Section ^

¶58

ALLOWING THE C.R.P.

B.Venkatarathnam v. Smt. P.Ramanamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Venkatarathnam v. Smt. P.Ramanamma

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

S Ravi Vs D Nirup Kumar

Jajala Muni Chandra Vs GaliChalapathy

S. Chan Basha, Vs Pujari Ramakrishna

Mangena Venkata Swamy Naidu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary

V.Suresh, Vs a.T.Megharaj

Smt. M.Suseelamma Vs K.Harshavardhan