Allowed

S Rahamathulla Waseem v. G Saleem Basha

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024CRP/6364/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a civil revision petition challenging a trial court’s permission to reopen evidence. The High Court held that reopening a reserved case only for arguments does not justify admitting late evidence without a proper explanation or application to recall witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The order of the trial court allowing the application to reopen evidence is set aside; the civil revision petition is allowed.

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

¶1

APHC010807402018

¶2

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

¶3

[3460]

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6364/2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

S Rahamathulla Waseem

...PETITIONER

AND

G Saleem Basha

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.VARUN BYREDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶17

1.Y JAYA RAJU

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶21

C.R.P.No.6364 of 2018

¶22

O R D E R:

¶23

The present revision is filed against the order dated 11.10.2018 in I.A.No.1080 of 2018 in O.S.No.449 of 2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

¶24

Petitioner is the defendant. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for eviction. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1080 of 2018 under Order 8 Rule 1(A) C.P.C., to condone delay in filing the petition schedule document and receive the same and marked as Exhibit.

¶25

It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that a postal acknowledgment of the year 2010 wherein the petitioner signed in English was traced recently and therefore, the said document is relevant for the purpose of the comparison of the signatures/Left Thumb Impression of petitioner/defendant.

¶26

The petitioner/defendant filed counter contending that after

¶27

the case was reserved for judgment, the same was reopened on

¶28

¶29

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 an additional chief affidavit of P.W.1 without there being an application to reopen the evidence of plaintiff and to recall him. After the case was adjourned on two occasions, the present application was filed. It was also pleaded that the above application cannot be maintained without there being any application to reopen and recall the plaintiff’s side evidence.

¶30

The trial Court allowed the I.A., as no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/defendant. Hence, the present civil revision petition is filed.

¶31

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

¶32

This Court is of the opinion that when the case was reserved for judgment and was reopened only to enable the counsel for the plaintiff to submit their arguments, it is not open to the respondent/plaintiff to file applications to re-open evidence

¶33

¶34

and receive documents. Therefore, the application per se could not be entertained.

¶35

Even otherwise, there is no proper explanation in the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff as to when the postal acknowledgement document of the year 2010 was traced. As per the plaint, the lease agreement between the parties is from 01.01.2011 onwards and there is no reference of any transaction between the parties prior to 2011 in the plaint. The application also does not mention in what context, the postal acknowledgment was received from the petitioner/defendant. In the absence of any explanation of these aspects, the trial Court could not have allowed the application when the suit was reopened only to hear the arguments of the Respondent/plaintiff.

¶36

Therefore, the order of the trial Court is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶38

Date: .09.2024 KLP

S Rahamathulla Waseem v. G Saleem Basha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Rahamathulla 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

S. Rahamthulla Waseem Vs G. Saleem Basha