Allowed

Jasti Naga Lakshmi v. Revada Rama Devi

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2024CRP/2759/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 challenging the trial court's dismissal of a stay petition and a petition to examine an official witness. The bench allowed both petitions, permitting the plaintiff to summon the Revenue Officer under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC to verify old property tax documents.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to obtain summons to the Revenue Officer under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC to examine old property tax documents.

Jasti Naga Lakshmi Vs Revada Rama Devi — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR j

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶4

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS; 2759 & 2760 OF 2023

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 2759 OF 2023

¶6

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 20-09-2023 passed in I.A.No. 507 of^{2023inO.S.No.106of} 2019 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Rajamahendaravarm.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Jasti Naga Lakshmi, W/o.Rama Rao, Hindu, age 40 years.^DoorNo.41-2- 75, Old Post Office Road, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada^520013.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Revada Rama Devi, W/o.R.A.Pattabhi Ram, Hindu, age 72 years, D.No.75-6-20, R/o. Symala Nagar, Rajahmundry.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶14

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 O.S.No.106^{of2019onthefileof} the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Rajamahendravaram , pending final disposal of the CRP.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitloner:SRI. SURESH KUMAR CHODISETTI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: SMT CH LAXMI NARAYANA

¶17

€

¶18

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2760 OF 2023:

¶19

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 20-09-2023 passed in LA.No. 508 of^{2023inO.SNo.106of} 2019 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge^{atRajamahendravaram.}

¶20

Between:

¶21

Jasti Naga Lakshmi, W/o.Rama Rao, Hindu, age 40 years.^DoorNo.41-2- 75, Old Post Office Road, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada^-520013.

¶22

...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶23

AND

¶24

Revada Rama Devi, W/o.R.A.Pattabhi Ram, Hindu, age 72 years D.No.75-6-20, R/o.Symala Nagar, Rajahmundry.

¶25

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI SURESH KUMAR CHODISETTI Counsel for the Respondent: SMT CH LAXMI NARAYANA

¶29

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶30

APHC010538922023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶31

[3311]

¶32

TUESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶35

Civil REVISION PETITIONS NO: 2759/2023 & 2760 of 2023

Between:

Jasti Naga Lakshmi

...PETITIONER

AND

Revada Rama Devi

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶43

1.SURESH KUMAR CHODISETTI

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶45

1.CH LAXMI NARAYANA

¶46

The Court made the following:

¶47

COMMON ORDER:

¶48

Since both revision petitions have the common grounds^andone is connected to the other, this Court is proceeding^{topassacommon} order.

¶49

CRP No.2760 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the^Constitution of India against the order dated 20.09.2023 dismissing petition in I.A.No.508 of 2023 in O.S.No.106 of 2019 on the file^oftheCourtof I

¶50

¶51

CRP.Nos.27S9 and 2760 of 2023

¶52

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 14 and Section 151 CPC to issue summons to the Revenue Officer-ll, Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation to examine him as court witness to produce the property tax, demand notice, ledger extract and the ledger of payment made^thereunder in respect of the plaint schedule property bearing Door^No.79-10-5 of Syamala Nagar, Rajamahendravaram and to give evidence^thereonand also with regard to documents marked as Exs.A.12 to^{A. 17issuedinthe} name of Sri K.Rama Krishna Gandhi who is the father of the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. CRP No.2759 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.09.2023 dismissing petition in I.A.No.507 of 2023 in O.S.No.106 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC to reopen the case for the purpose of examining the official witness i.e. Revenue Officer of Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation as court witness for adducing further evidence. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. On her behalf, she filed documents^markedas Exs.A.12 to A. 17 which are old property tax demand notices dated 17.03.2023 marked as Ex.A.12; receipts for payment^{oftaxmarkedas} Exs.A.13 to A. 17 in respect of the demand under Ex.A.12 for the assessment years 1984 to 1989 issued by the then Rajamahendravaram municipality in the name of Sri K.Ramakrishna Gandhi. The petitioner states that the documents under^Exs.A.12 to A. 17 were disputed by the respondent/defendant during the cross examination of the petitioner/PW.1 held on 28.08.2023^{suggestingthat}

¶53

¶54

CRP.Nos.2759 and 2760 of 2023

¶55

they do not pertain to the plaint schedule property, but they pertain to some other property and further that they are recently^created. It is also suggested to PW.1 that the schedule property is not^{withinthelimitsof} Rajamahendravaram Municipality till 1995 and that Prakash Nagar Gandhi Panchayat used to collect the tax till 1995 etc. and in view thereof, it necessitated the plaintiff to file the petition. 5. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent opposing the relief and further stating that the request of the petitioner to examine the witness chosen by her as court witness^isuntenable; that the petitioner’s evidence was closed long back, but she got her evidence reopened recently and re-examined herself^{andherevidence} was closed for second time on 28.08.2023 and then another petition is not filed, instead of submitting arguments, just to drag on the matter by filing petition after the petition.

¶56

After hearing both parties, the petitions were dismissed by the trial Court holding that the record shows that the petition was filed only to fill up the gaps in the evidence of the plaintiff^{andtherearenobona} tides as recently her evidence was reopened and closed.

¶57

Having aggrieved by the orders, these revision petitions^arefiled.

¶58

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is need to examine the witness sought to be summoned in^viewofthe objection taken by the defendant in the cross examination of PW.1 questioning the genuineness of the documents and also^their relevancy to the plaint schedule property and, therefore, it^{ismaterialtoexamine} the proposed witness. In this regard, he has drawn^{theattentionofthis} Court to the cross examination of PW.1. He further stated that this

¶59

CRP.Nos.2759 and 2760 of 2023

¶60

document is very material to decide the disputed aspect in the suit for declaration of title. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted as in the counter.

¶61

The examination of PW.1 was held on 08.02.2023 and the cross examination was held on 28.08.2023. whereas the petition^to summon the witness was filed on 04.09.2023. It is only after cross examination of PW.1, the necessity to prove the genuineness of these documents arose, particularly in view of the denial of those documents in the cross examination held by the defendant. As such, it cannot be considered that the petition is filed to drag on the proceedings or to fill up the gaps. There are no latches since the petition was filed shortly after the conclusion of the cross examination.

¶62

However, instead of summoning the witness as the court witness under Order XVI, Rule 14 CPC, the petitioner can be permitted to summon the witness through Court under Order XVI, Rule 1(3) CPC. As such, this Court deems it fit to allow the petition not under Order XVI, Rule 14 CPC. but under Order XVI, Rule 1(3) CPC and give permission to the petitioner to obtain summons to the witness through Court for the purpose mentioned in the petition.

¶63

Accordingly, C.R.P.No.2760 of 2023 is allowed by setting aside the order dated 20.09.2023 in I.A.No.508 of 2023 in O.S.No.106 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge Rajamahendravaram and the said I.A.No.508 of 2023 is allowed by permitting the petitioner under XVI, Rule 1(3) CPC^to obtain summons to the witness through Court for the purpose mentioned in the petition.

¶64

[

¶65

¶66

CRP.Nos.2759 and 2760 of 2023

¶67

While issuing summons, copies of Exs.A.12 to A.17 may also be enclosed, so that the witness can bring the relevant^record. 13. Since it is necessary to summon the witness, it is necessary to reopen the evidence, Accordingly, C.R.P.No.2759 of 2023 is also allowed.

¶68

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in these Civil Revision petitions, shall stand closed.

¶70

SDI- B. PRASADA RAO assistant registrar

//TRUE COPY//

yc SECTION OFFICER

The I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. I KUMAR CHODISETTI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

One CC to SRI. SURESH LAXMI NARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

One CC to SMT. CH _

¶77

Three C.D.Copies

HIGH COURT DATED: 15/10/2024

¶82

¶83

COMMON ORDER CRP.No.2759 & 2760 of 2023

¶84

X 2 3 NOV ZOZ"! ^
^ . Current Section
Pe^SPATCV^

¶85

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS

Jasti Naga Lakshmi v. Revada Rama Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasti Naga Lakshmi v. Revada Rama Devi

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

Rayabarapu Babu, Vs Ex-Officio Secy.,Food and Civil Supplies,a.P.

Vavilapalli Satyam Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Devavarapu Nookaraju, Vs Prl.Secy., Irrigation dept., State of A.P.

P Veera Raghavulu Vs Pallapu Krishna Murthy

P.Veera Raghavulu Vs Pallapu Krishna Murthy

Mandalapu Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Kodali Nischal Deep