Allowed

K.Subramanyam Chetty, v. E.Doraswamy Naidu

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jul 2024CRP/494/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed in a writ petition. The petitioned sought stay of proceedings in an underlying suit based on a plea of forged signature. The High Court found the Trial Court overlooked the petitioner's written arguments regarding specific registered documents. It allowed the revision to remand the interlocutory application back to

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the application was set aside and the matter remanded to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication on all aspects.

K.Subramanyam Chetty, Vs E.Doraswamy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.494 of 2024

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the orders dated 12.02.2024 passed in I.A. No. 154/2023 in O.S. No. 188/2017 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),^Chittoor. Between:

¶7

K.Subramanyam Chfetty.;,, S/o K.Munaswamy Chetty, aged 70 years. Hindu, Cultivation. R/o Muthukuru Village and Post, Thavanampalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶8

...Petitioner/ Petitioner/1 Defendant AND

¶9

E.Doraswamy Naidu, (Died)

¶10

Smt.B.Ratnamma, W/o Chandaraiah Naidu, aged 67 years, Hindu, housewife, resident of Diguvathadakalar Village and post, Thavanampalle Mandal, Chittoor District

¶11

E.Babu Naidu, S/o Late Doraswamy Naidu, aged 59. years. Cultivation R/o Muthukuru Village and post. Thavanampalle Mandal,^Chittoor district.

¶12

E.Dandapani Naidu, S/o Late E.Doraswamy Naidu, aged 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Muthukuru Village and post, Thavanampalle Mandal, Chittoor district.

¶13

Smt K.Rajamma @ Rajanna. W/o Rajagopal Naidu, aged^About60 years, Hindu, House-wife, residing at Hakeem Saheb street, Chittoor town and District

¶14

...Respondents/Respondents/

¶15

Plaintiffs/Defendant Nos.2 & 3

¶16

(Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are not necessary parties in this Revision) lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

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.188^{of2017onthefileof} Additionaf Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor pending disposal of the above-Revision.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri L J Veera Reddy

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

APHC010114402024

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶23

■

¶24

AT AMARAVATI

¶25

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

[3206]

¶27

FRIDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY

¶28

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶31

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 494/2024

¶32

Between:

¶33

K.subramanyam Chetty,

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

E Doraswamy Naidu and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.L J VEERA REDDY

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶42

¶43

The Court made the following order:

¶44

The respondents 1 to 3 herein had filed O.S.No.188 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Chittoor, for recovery of the suit amount with interest against the petitioner herein and other defendants.

¶45

The petitioner took the plea that the signature on the suit pro note is not his signature and has been forged. With a view to demonstrate this fact.

¶46

¶47

the petitioner moved I.A.No.154 of 2023, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for sending the same for comparison. This application has been dismissed on various grounds including the ground that there were no contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner available for comparison.

¶48

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order of^dismissal dated 12.02.2024, has moved this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶49

Heard Sri L. J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶50

Sri L. J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner^would submit that the petitioner, in the written arguments filed in the above Interlocutory Application, had specifically mentioned^{Ex.B-4dated18.08.2019} and Ex. B-5 dated 12.10.2018, which are registered^{documentswhichcontain} the signature of the petitioner and that these documents^{couldbeusedfor} comparing the signature on the disputed pro note.

¶51

He would also submit that this fact was over-looked by the Trial Court which had held that no contemporaneous documents had been placed before the Trial Court for comparison.

¶52

Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that the said plea was not^raised either in the pleadings or in the application and as such the Trial Court was justified in holding that no documents had been placed before the Trial Court for comparison. He would also submit that the Trial Court^had dismissed the application on other grounds also and even if this ground were to be made out, the final decision in the matter would not change.^{Hewouldalsosubmit}

¶53

¶54

that the matter is presently at the stage of arguments and as such the application was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶55

In view of the fact that the Trial Court has over-looked the contents of the written arguments, it would only be appropriate to remand back to the Trial Court for considering the application again on its merits.

¶56

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the Trial Court in I.A.No.154 of 2023 in O.S.No.188 of 2017 and remand the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication on all aspects. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

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

¶58

closed.

¶59

¶60

SD/-S.SRINIVASA PRASAD

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor,^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶66

One CC to Sri L J Veera Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate^[OPUC]

¶68

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

RRR,J

DATED;05/07/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.494 of 2024

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

K.Subramanyam Chetty, v. E.Doraswamy Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subramanyam Chetty, v. E.Doraswamy Naidu

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

Dulla Appann ( Died) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ponneri Raghupathi Vs Godugu Chintha Indhranammai

Raavi Prasad Reddy, Vs Shashi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S

Nadavalur Dhanajaya Reddy Vs K Raja Reddy

Nimmagadda Venkatagiri Varaprasad, Vs Thiruvayipati VijaykumarAT Saathanu Vijaykumar

Thalia Gayatri Reddy Vs M/s Ready Wear Private Limited