Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the second defendant in a suit for eviction. The appellant failed to adduce evidence as per a conditional order, leading to dismissal of his interpleader/extension application.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
C.M.A.No.738 of 2009
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy)
This appeal, by the second defendant in the suit, is directed against the order dated 2.06.2009 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, in I.A.No.427 of 2009 in I.A.No.255 of 2009 in O.S.No.5 of 2006, whereby the I.A filed for restoration of I.A.No.255 of 2009 filed for granting time for adducing evidence, has been dismissed.
The plaintiff instituted the above suit for eviction of the first defendant from the suit schedule premises and for recovery of damages for his illegal occupation of the suit schedule premises. After closure of evidence of the first defendant, as the appellant/second defendant, who is claiming to be the half shareholder of the suit schedule premises, has not laid any evidence, his evidence was also closed. Hence, the second defendant filed I.A.No.255 of 2009 for reopening the case and to permit him to lead evidence, in which a conditional order was passed on 1.04.2009 subject to his adducing evidence on 9.04.2009 otherwise the petition shall stand dismissed. On 9.04.2009, since the Presiding Officer was on O.D., the matter was posted to 17.04.2009. On 17.04.2009 the second defendant has not filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination, but requested for extension of time till 20.04.2009. Even on 20.04.2009, though he was present in the Court, he did not adduce any evidence nor filed his chief affidavit, and as such he failed to comply the conditional order dated 1.04.2009. Hence the lower Court rightly closed his evidence and dismissed I.A.No.255 of 2009.
Since no relief is claimed against the appellant/defendant in the main suit, even if he is having any interest in the suit schedule property,
he cannot resist the eviction of the first defendant from the suit schedule property.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ (A. Gopal Reddy, J.)
___________________ (B. Chandra Kumar, J.) 8th October, 2009 Js.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second defendant claiming half share can resist eviction when no relief is claimed against him in the main suit and he failed to lead evidence.
First Defendant
Second Defendant
A. Gopal Reddy
B. Chandra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
