Dismissed

Siga Mahesh v. Siga Kistamma

Telangana HC24 Jun 2010CRP/1295/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision Petition, the Hon'ble High Court declined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the trial court's order refusing to reopen evidence in a partition suit. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the plaintiff had protracted the litigation without valid justification.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs.

Siga Mahesh Vs Siga Kistamma — Partition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

CIVL REVISION PETITION NO.1295 OF 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The order under challenge in this revision is the order passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.235 of 2007 in O.S.No.359 of 2003 dated 27.09.2007 requesting the Court to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and to receive the affidavits of P.Ws.3 to 5.

¶5

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition. It is his case that, on 21.03.2007, he could not produce the witnesses and, therefore, his evidence was closed and the suit was posted for the defendants’ evidence. He also stated that he became sick, and could not produce the witnesses, which act was accidental but not intentional. The Court below observed that there was no material to show that he was sick and, on the other hand, the plaintiff, by examining himself as P.W.1, had taken several adjournments for further evidence, and the matter was finally posted for his evidence on certain conditions on 02.12.2006. As the petitioner-plaintiff did not adduce any evidence on that day also, the Court below closed the evidence and posted the matter for defendants’ evidence. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application to reopen the suit to examine P.W.2. The Court below records that he did not press the said application, and the said application was also dismissed.

¶6

The petitioner-plaintiff filed an application to restore the petition filed earlier to examine P.W.2 and the restoration petition was also dismissed for default. Subsequently, the Court below restored the said petition and allowed I.A.No.654 of 2006 to reopen the suit and permitted the petitioner to examine P.W.2. P.W.2 was cross examined

¶7

on 10.04.2007 and, since the petitioner did not state that he had any further evidence to adduce, the matter was closed and it was posted for defendants’ evidence to 24.04.2007 and then to 06.06.2007 and on the said date, the present application was filed by the petitionerplaintiff to permit him to examine some more witnesses.

¶8

The Court below observed that, from the entire docket, it was evident that the petitioner was protracting the litigation; the conduct of the plaintiff, and his failure to file any document to show that he was sick and was prevented from appearing before the Court, showed that the petitioner-plaintiff had no intention to proceed with the suit. The Court below also noted the contentions advanced on behalf of respondents 7 to 9 that, if the plaintiff is permitted to adduce evidence at this stage, it would cause prejudice since the contesting defendants 6 to 8 had already adduced evidence, and permitting the plaintiff to adduce evidence at that stage would amount to filling up gaps which is not permissible under law.

¶9

It is evident from the order of the Court below that the petitioner has been protracting the litigation on one ground or the other. His request that he be permitted to examine P.Ws.3 and 4 and after the evidence had been let in by the contesting defendants 6 to 8, would amount to filling up the gaps, which the Court below has rightly held ought not to be permitted.

¶10

In proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal over the orders, more so discretionary orders, of the Court below and, save manifest injustice or patent illegality, this Court would not interfere. The order under revision does not suffer from any such infirmities necessitating exercise of discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the matter. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶11

However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶12

_______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)

¶13

24^th June 2010 RRB

Siga Mahesh v. Siga Kistamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siga Mahesh v. Siga Kistamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pagadala Pratap Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle secretary

Nayabeen-e-Quzzath Welfare Association, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Krishna Vs Dugam Chandraiah (Died) per L.Rs.

J.Rama Lakshmaiah, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Chess Association office at

K.Kanna Reddy, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Chess Association office at

The Divisional Manager, Vs Boya Madamma