Disposed

Mulampaka Sarada, v. Namana Sravanthi

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Feb 2024CRP/144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff's application for adjournment to produce PW-3 for cross-examination was dismissed by the trial Court without dealing with the reasons shown. The High Court held procedural rules are handmaids of justice and permitted the plaintiff to file a fresh application within a week for liberal consideration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file fresh application within one week before trial Court to set aside/recall order dated 19.12.2023 and produce PW-3, to be considered liberally.

Mulampaka Sarada, Vs Namana Sravanthi — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY JHE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FE TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 144 OF 2024

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow the CRP and set aside the order, dated 19.12.2023 passed^{inI.A.No.2130of} 2023 in O.S.No.236 of 2014, by the learned the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mulampaka Sarada, W/o. M. Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 54 years, Streedhanam, Resident of C/o. T.J. Motthal, V-56, V Block, 11‘^ Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

AND

¶11

Namana Sravanthi, D/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 33 years. Graduation in Medicine, resident of R-4, Srila Park Pride, Hyderabad, Hyderabad City Civil Judge Court.

¶12

Namana VenkateswaraRao, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged 66 years. Employee, resident of R-4, Srila Park Pride, Hyderabad, Hyderabad City Civil Judge Court.

¶13

Naraharisetti Surya Rao, S/o. Sri Subba Rao, Hindu, Business, aged 50 years, resident of D.No.66-5-1/5, Nallamvari Street, Narasanna Nagar, Kakinada, Kakinada JCJC.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.236 of 2014 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P. RAJASEKHAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 144 of 207d

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶23

For the order proposed to be passed and in the interest of justice as keeping the petition pending would serve no fruitful purpose, this petition is being decided finally at this stage, dispensing with issuance of notice to the respondents, but securing their interest as well.

¶24

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.236 of 2014 pending in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The suit is for declaration of rights, title and interest in the plaint schedule property with the prayer of recovery of possession and injunction. The plaintiff examined PW-3 by filing his examination in chief. As PW-3 could not be produced for cross-examination, by Order dated 02.11.2023, the examination in chief was eschewed from the record. In other words the examination in chief was not to be taken in consideration as evidence for want of opportunity to the other side for crossexamination. The plaintiff filed LA. for setting aside the order dated 02.11.2023. The said application was allowed to meet the ends of justice, subject to the presence of PW-3 by the next date of adjournment on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the defendant and the matter was adjourned to 19.12.2023. The petitioner paid the costs. However, on the date fixed PW-3

¶25

RNT, J 2 CRP No. 144 of 2024

¶26

could not appear. The petitioner filed application I.A.No.2130 of 2023 seeking adjournment of the matter, inter alia submitting that PW-3 is an old aged person of about 73 years, residing at Hyderabad. There was medical urgency. It was also pleaded that because of Advocates' boycott on that day, PW-3 could not be present. The petitioner requested for adjournment. By Order dated 19.12.2023, impugned in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the trial Court recorded that "costs memo filed, PW-3 absent. Therefore, petition is dismissed".

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already paid the costs imposed pursuant to the previous order dated 11.12.2023. He further submits that for the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2130 of 2023, the learned trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity, might be, by imposing costs, to produce PW-3. He submits that because of rejection of the application, the valuable right of the petitioner would be defeated and the suit proceedings^would be affected adversely to the detriment of the petitioner. If the trial Court had allowed one more opportunity considering the cause shown, no prejudice would have been caused to the defendants/respondents. He further submits that even the reasons assigned in the application have not been dealt with in the impugned order nor rejected. He submits that the petitioner is ready to produce PW-3 for cross-examination on any date to be fixed by the trial Court, positively.

¶28

On consideration of the submissions advanced this Court is of the view that the rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice. They are

¶29

RNT. ,1 CRP No. 144 or 2024

¶30

handmaid of justice. For failure of the petitioner to produce PW-3 for crossexamination on the date fixed and particularly when I.A. was filed supported with affidavit, assigning the reasons for the absence of PW-3, rejection of the application for adjournment to another date to enable the petitioner to produce PW-3 for cross-examination and that too without observing anything contrary to the assigned reasons, is not in advancement of the cause of justice. In suit there is determination of valuable rights of the parties. To provide opportunity of hearing is the rule. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application have not been considered at all by the learned trial Court.

¶31

Considering that the rules of procedure are for advancement of justice, the factual situation and considering the grounds assigned in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.2130 of 2023, this revision petition is being disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application for setting aside or recalling of the order dated 19.12.2023 before the trial Court and also to grant an opportunity to produce PW-3, on the date fixed by the trial Court. If such an application is filed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, along with copy of this order, the learned trial Court shall consider the same liberally and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, keeping in view that the rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice, with due opportunity of hearing to the respondents as well. No order as to costs.

¶32

RNT,J CRP No. 144 of 2024

¶33

¶34

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

¶35

consequence.

¶36

SDI- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTIONOFFICER

The III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. (with records if any)

¶41

One CC to Sri. P. Rajasekhar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

Three C.D Copies.

SSL

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:28/02/2024

ORDER

CRP.N0.144 OF 2024

DISPOSING OF THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

5^*

Mulampaka Sarada, v. Namana Sravanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulampaka Sarada, v. Namana Sravanthi

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

P. Parvathi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pallam Ramanaiah Vs G Sai Prasad, IAS

Mamidala Bhaskar Vs Shamsher Singh Rawat,I.a.S

Chekuri Srinivas Vs Kandilli Atchiayamma

Burre Raju Vs Neelam Papamani

Muthabathula Ratna Kumar Vs Putta Venkata Satya Somasekhar