Allowed

S. Rahamthulla Waseem v. G. Saleem Basha

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024CRP/6361/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside a trial court order allowing an application to direct a defendant to sign in English and verify receipts. The Court held the direction unsustainable due to the plea of incapacity and the reopening of a reserved case improper without prior application.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 11.10.2018 in I.A.No.1081 of 2018 in O.S.No.449 of 2012 is set aside; miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

S. Rahamthulla Waseem Vs G. Saleem Basha — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR i PRESENT i

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6361 OF 2018

¶4

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Docket Order and Decree dated 11.10.2018 in I.A.No. 1081 of 2018 in O.S.No. 449 of 2012 ( hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool .

¶5

Between:

¶6

S. Rahamthulla Waseem, S/o Abdul Khadar, Aged about 48 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 8/20, Kavadi Street, Kurnool City

¶7

...Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant

¶8

AND

¶9

G. Saleem Basha, S/o G Ahamad Hussain, Aged about 49 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 36/184, Chittari Street, Kurnool City

¶10

...Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶11

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶12

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 of all further proceedings in OS No.449 of 2012 before the

¶13

¶14

Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool pending disposal of the present CRP.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent:SRI Y. JAYA RAJU

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

¶18

APHC010807382018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶19

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY \ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6361/2018

¶22

Between:

¶23

S. Rahamthulla Waseem ...PETITIONER AND

¶24

G Saleem Basha ...RESPONDENT

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent:

¶27

1.Y JAYA RAJU

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶31

C.R.P.No.6361 of 2018

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The present revision is filed against the order dated 11.10.2018 in I.A.No.1081 of 2018 in O.S.No.449 of 2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. Petitioner is the defendant. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for eviction. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1081 of 2018 to direct the defendant to put his signatures in English and also his Left Thumb Impression (LTI) to enable the Court to compare the same with signatures and LTI in Ex.A.1, A.2 and A.8 receipts. 3. The petitioner/defendant filed counter contending that after the case was reserved for judgment, the same was reopened on 27.09.2018 for the purpose of advancing arguments pursuant to an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff. On 03.10.2018 the respondent/plaintiff filed additional chief affidavit of P.W.1 without there being application to reopen the evidence of plaintiff and to recall him. After the case was adjourned on two

¶34

¶35

occasions, the present application was filed. It was^pleadedthat the petitioner/defendant is incapable of signing in^Englishand therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. It was also contended that comparison cannot be done with Xerox^copies. 4. The trial Court allowed the I.A., directing the petitioner/defendant to appear before the Court to^markhisthumb impression and to sign in English in the presence of^theCourt. Hence, the present civil revision petition is filed.

¶36

Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Jaya Raju, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶37

This Court is of the opinion that when the plea of the petitioner/defendant is that he is unable to sign in English, allowing the application and directing the petitioner/defendant^to sing in English is unsustainable. If the trial Court^{isoftheopinion} that the petitioner/defendant can sign in English but he is intentionally avoiding to do so, it is an aspect to^beconsidered while appreciating the evidence on record.

¶38

7.. Coming to the aspect of thumb impression, the case^was reserved for judgment and reopened to enable the counsel^forthe

¶39

¶40

plaintiff to submit their arguments. The scope of reopening^the suit which was reserved for judgment is only to enable the respondent/plaintiff to submit arguments only, Therefore, the application perse could not be entertained.

¶41

Even otherwise, there is no explanation in the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff as to why such a step could not be taken while the trial was going on. In the absence of any explanation for the delay, the trial Court should not have entertained the explanation.

¶42

Therefore, the order of the trial Court dated 11.10.2018 in I.A.No.1081 of 2018 in O.S.No.449 of 2012 is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall^standclosed.

¶43

SDI- G. HELA NAIDU \ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR '

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

¶48

OneCCto SRI. VARUN BYREDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

One CC to SRI. Y. JAYA RAJU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Three C.D.Copies

¶51

¶52

¶53

HIGH COURT DATED:05/09/2024

¶54

ORDER

¶55

CRP.No.6361 of 2018

¶56

OV,
X 2 0 NOV 202^ mil
o Oil;
^ . Current Section

¶57

ALLOWING THE CRP

S. Rahamthulla Waseem v. G. Saleem Basha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Rahamthulla Waseem v. G. Saleem Basha

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

Bokka Krishna Murthy, Vs Bokka Srinivasa Rao

Lalitha Kumar Vs P.Lakshmi Devi

Salla Nagabhushanam Vs Kumari Pushpalatha

Mallipudi Durga Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Udaya Bhaskara Vs Gatti Subbarao

Vadde Venkateswarlu, Vs Gandam Rama Subba Reddy

B Krishnama Naidu Vs B Prabhavathi