The High Court held that the trial court exercised its discretion correctly to re-open plaintiff's evidence but erred in summoning the Tahsildar as the requirement under Rule 129(c) of the Civil Rules of Practice was not met.
CrP No. 2615 of 2018 allowed; summons to Tahsildar set aside. CrP No. 2312 of 2018 dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 2312 & 2615 OF 2018
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2312 OF 2018
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order and Decree in I.A.No.162 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2006 dated 28-022018 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.
Between:
...Petitioners/Respondents 3 & 4/Defendants 3 & 4
AND
(There is no relief claimed against the Respondents 2 to 6. Hence not necessary)
...Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Respondents 1 2, 5 to 7
lA NO: 1 OF 2niQ
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i ' in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to recall the order dt. 18.06.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CRP.No.2312 of 2018 to decide CRP on merits.
lA NO: 1 OF 209d
Between:
residing at Periyambadi village and post, Yadamarri mandal, Chittoor district.
R.R.Avenue, Bhavani nagar, KT road, Tirupati, Tirupati district.
3
...Petitioners No.2 to 5/Proposed Petitioners
(Note:-Petitioners are the proposed legal heirs of deceased Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.R.P.No.2312.)
AND
...Respondents/Petitioners
... Respondents/Respondents 2 to 6 in CRP
(Note. Respondents 3 to 7 are not necessary Parties in Present Application).
Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit us to Come on record as LR’s of Deceased Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in CRP.No.2312 of 2018 by Condoning the delay of 497 days in filing the L.R petition for setting aside the abatement in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in CRP.No.2312 of 2018 to prosecute the subject matter in the interests of justice and equity. Else we will be put to irreparable loss, damage and injury.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Between:
...Petitioners No.2 to 5/Proposed Petitioners
5
(Note:-Petitioners are the proposed legal heirs of deceased Petitioner i n I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.R.P.No.2312.)
AND
...Respondents/Petitioners
... Respondents/Respondents 2 to 6 in CRP
(Note; Respondents 3 to 7 are not necessary Partiesin Present Application).
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 Set-a-side the abatement in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in CRP No.2312 of 2018 to permit us to Come on record as LR’s of Deceased Petitioner to prosecute the subject matter in. the interests of justice and equity. Else we will be put to irreparable loss, damage and injury and pass
lA NO: 3 OF 2024
Between:
R.R.Avenue, Bhavani nagar, KT road, Tirupati, Tirupatidistrict.
...Petitioners No.2 to 5/Proposed Petitioners
(Note;-Petitioners are the proposed legal heirs of deceased Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.R.P.No.2312.)
AND
OcciLandlord, R/o.D.No. 19-9-4, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati, Chittoor
District.
...Respondents/Petitioners
... Respondents/Respondents 2 to 6 in CRP
(Note: Respondents 3 to 7 are not necessary PartiesinPresent Application).
Petition under Order 22 Rule 4 r/w 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 permit Petitioners herein to Come on record as LR’s of Deceased Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in CRP No.2312 of 2018 to prosecute the subject matter in the interests of justice and equity. Else we will be put to irreparable loss, damage and injury.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. T V Jaggi Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri. M Ramakanth
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 261S DF 7ni«
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order and Decree in I.A.No.163 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2006 dated 28-02 2018 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.
Between:
...Petitlohers/Respondents 3 & 4/Defendants 3 & 4
AND
(There is no relief claimed against the Respondents 2 to 6. Hence not necessary)
...Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Respondents 1, 2, 5 to 7
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Between:
P.Lakshmi Devi ...Petitioners/1 Respondent in CRP AND
(Note: Respondents 3 to 7 are not necessary parties in the present Application)
...Respondents/Respondents 2 to 6 in the CRP
10
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 recall the order dt. 18,06.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CRP.No. 2615 of 2018 to decide CRP on merits. lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Between:
...Petitioners No.2 to 5/Proposed Petitioners
(Note;-Petitioners are the proposed legal heirs of deceased Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.R.P.No.2615)
AND
1\
...Respondents/Petitioners
... Respondents/Respondents 2 to 6 in CRP
(Note: Respondents 3 to 7 are not necessary Partiesin Present Application).
Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act r/w 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit us to Come on record as LR’s of Deceased Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in CRP.No.2615 of 2018 by Condoning the delay of 496 days in filing the L.R petition for setting aside the abatement in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in CRP.No.2615 of 2018 to prosecute the subject matter in the interests of justice and equity. Else we will be put to irreparable loss, damage and injury.
1^
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Between:
...Petitioners No.2 to 5/Proposed Petitione rs
(Note;-Petitioners are the proposed legal heirs of deceased Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.R.P.No.2615)
AND
13
...Respondents/Petitioners
... Respondents/Respondents 2 to 6 in CRP
(Note: Respondents 3 to 7 are not necessary Parties in Present Application).
Petition under Order 9 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC prayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Set-a-s,ide the abatement in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in CRP No.2615 of 2018 to permit us to Come on record as LR’s of Deceased Petitioner to prosecute the subject matter in the interests of justice and equity. Else we will be put to irreparable loss, damage and injury.
lA NO: 3 OF 2024
Between:
R.R.Avenue, Bhavani nagar, KT road, Tirupati, Tirupatidistrict.
...Petitioners No.2 to 5/Proposed Petitioners
(Note;-Petitioners are the proposed legal heirs of deceased Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.R.P..No.2615)
AND
Chittoor District
...Respondents/Petitioners
Respondents/Respondents 2 to 6 in CRP (Note: Respondents 3 to 7 are not necessary Parties in Present Application).
Petition under Section Order 22 Rule 4 & 9 r/w 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit Petitioners herein to Come on record as LR’s of Deceased Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in CRP No.2615 of 2018 to prosecute the subject matter in the interests of justice and equity. Else we will be put to irreparable loss, damage and injury.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. T V Jaggi Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri. M Ramakanth
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: Sri. DevalarajuAnilKumar
The Court made the following:
APHC010269S12018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2312/2018
Between:
Lalitha Kumar and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
P Lakshmi Devi and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.TVJAGGI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
2.M RAMAKANTH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2615/2018
Between:
Lalitha Kumar And Another and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
P Lakshmi Devi And 5 Others and Others
...RESPONDENT{S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.T V JAGGI REDDY
2
Counsel for the Respondent{S):
1.DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR
2.M RAMAKANTH
The Court made the following:
3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.Nos.2312 and 2615 of 2018
COMMON ORDER:
The CRP.No.2312 of 2018 is filed questioning the order to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence vide dated 28.02.2018 in I.A.No.162 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2006 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. The CRP.No.2615 of 2018 is filed questioning theorder to summon Tahsildar, Tirupati to produce documentsand to give evidence vide dated 28.02.2018 in I.A.No.163 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2006 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.
- Petitioner is the plaintiff. Two applications i.e. LA.Nos.162 and 163 of 2018 were filed to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence and to summon Tahsildar, Tirupati to produce documents and to give evidence. The suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties in two equal shares and to allot one share to the plaintiff. The above mentioned applications were filed to establish the claim of the plaintiff that Sy.No.496/5 was not in existence in revenue records by the date of Ex.B.1 dated 15.04.1985. It was in that context, the examination of Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal was sought by the plaintiff. Along with the application to summon, the
4
Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal, was also directed to produce the following documents:
5
- The question whether Sy.No.496/5 was in existence as on date of Ex.B.1 or not, is a matter of record and the plaintiff cannot straightaway seek for summoning the Tahsildar to give evidence on this aspect unless the Rule 129(c) of the Civil Rules of Practice is complied. The documents refered in the application can be sought for through RTI or any other mode by the plaintiff and the same could be filed before the court. There is no reason for the petitioner to summon theTahsildar as it is not a case where the Tahsildar is having exclusive information beyond the record.
6
- Therefore, the common order of the trial Court to the extent of summoning the Tahsildar is set-aside and the CRP.No.2615 of 2018 filed against order in I.A.No.163 of 2018 is allowed. 6. However, since the plaintiff relies on the documents referred supra to substantiate its plea that Sy.No.496/5 was not in existence in revenue records by the date of Ex.B.1 dated 15.04.1985 and the trial Court having exercised its discretion to re-open the evidence of the plaintiff, this Court is not inclined to interfere with that part of the order as there is no error in exercise of its discretion. The CRP.No.2312 of 2018 filed questioning the order to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence vide dated 28.02.2018 in I.A.No.162 of 2018 is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SE OFFICER
To, 1. The III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, ChittoorDistrict,(with if any) 2. One CC to Sri. T V Jaggi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. M Ramakanth, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Devalaraju Anil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of A.P.,Amaravathi. 6. Three CD Copies SNS sree
HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2024
COMMON ORDER
CRP.Nos.2312 & 2615 of 2018
5 0 3 OCT 2024 |
S-
^ ^ Current Section
ALLOWING THE CRP 2615 of 2018 DISMISSING THE CRP 2312 of 2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court acted within its discretion in re-opening the plaintiff's evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in summoning the Tahsildar without complying with Rule 129(c) of the Civil Rules of Practice.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Lalitha Kumar
P. Lakshmidevi
Nyapathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
