Dismissed

Siddartha Carbochem Products Limited, v. The Andhra Sugars Limited, Tanuku

Telangana HC12 Jul 2010CRP/2307/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court dismissed the plea seeking reentrustment of the commission of warrant for reexamination of witnesses, holding that alleged inadvertence by counsel is not a valid ground to fill lacunae in evidence.

What did the court decide?

Application for reentrustment of commission of warrant dismissed; Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

Siddartha Carbochem Products Limited, Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2307 of 2010 Dated:12.07.2010

¶3

Between:

¶4

Siddartha Carbochem Products Limited.

¶5

….Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Andhra Pradesh Sugars Limited.

¶8

…Respondent

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2307 of 2010

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.39 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge and Family Court, West Godavari, Eluru. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,64,207/- towards goods supplied. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.48 of 2007 for damages in a sum of Rs.32,00,000/-. Both the suits were clubbed by the lower Court and evidence is being recorded in O.S.No.39 of 2005.

¶12

The petitioner herein examined D.Ws.1 and 2. Both the witnesses were examined on commission at Jalagaon, Maharastra. The commission was executed and returned to the Court. The petitioner again filed I.A.No.239 of 2010 for reentrustment of commission of warrant to the Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of reexamination. By impugned order dated 12.03.2010 the Court below dismissed the application directing the petitioner to produce its witnesses on or before 23.03.2010 for reexamination or any other purpose. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶13

This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the respondent. It is mainly contended that when the Advocate Commissioner was appointed for examination of D.W.1, who is an elderly person aged 75 years, and D.W.2 who is afflicted with paralysis, the Court below ought to have reentrusted the commission of warrant for reexamination. This is refuted by the Counsel for the other side.

¶14

In the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.239 of 2010 the petitioner’s General Power of Attorney holder alleged that, “on some important aspects due to inadvertence of the Counsel, the two witnesses could not be reexamined”, and therefore, they have to be reexamined. This is not a valid reason. Obviously, the petitioner is trying to fill up the lacunae in the evidence, and for such a purpose the Advocate Commissioner cannot be reentrusted with the warrant. If so advised, the petitioner may produce its witnesses for clarifying any statements made earlier. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶16

12.07.2010

¶17

Siddartha Carbochem Products Limited, v. The Andhra Sugars Limited, Tanuku

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddartha Carbochem Products Limited, v. The Andhra Sugars Limited, Tanuku

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhakar Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotion Trust, Vs Bandla Sambasiva Rao

K.Pavan, Vs The State of A.P.

Ganapabattula Surya Prakasa Rao Vs Sri Durga Srinivasa Agencies

Suvari Sivayya Vs Rudraraju Leelavathi

K. Venkateswara rao Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer