Dismissed

Thondavarapu Malleswararao v. Chavithina Gangamma

Telangana HC19 Feb 2010CRP/361/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition filed against an order dismissing an application to summon the Tahasildar for production of public documents was dismissed. The High Court held that since certified copies were already placed on record and marked, there were no compelling reasons to summon the official.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Thondavarapu Malleswararao Vs Chavithina… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

C.R.P.No.361 OF 2010

¶6

Between:Thondavarapu Malleswararao and another

¶7

…Petitioners

¶8

A n d

¶9

Chavithian Gangamma

¶10

…Respondent

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.361 OF 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 26-10-2009 in I.A.No.432 of 2009 in O.S.No.30 of 2005, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, the defendants, seeking issuance of summons to Tahasildhar, Vepada Mandal for causing production of final check operation adangal and 10(1) account and to give evidence, was dismissed.

¶14

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent. Perused the records.

¶15

3. It is stated that certified copies of the adangal and 10(1) account have already been filed and they are referred to in the chief affidavit filed by the petitioners/defendants proposing to mark them as exhibits in ‘B’ series and the certified copy of the public document is thus filed and there being no objection for admission of the same into evidence, there is no need to summon the Tahasildhar for marking the said documents. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the observation of the trial Court that the application for certified copy has been made and the same has not been granted is incorrect, inasmuch as the certified copies of the said documents have been duly obtained and also filed before the Court.

¶16

4. Be that as it may, inasmuch the certified copies of the public documents have already been placed on record, there are no compelling reasons for summoning the Tahasildar for the purpose of marking the said documents as exhibits, as the same can be marked through the defendants also.

¶17

5. The impugned order passed by the trial Court refusing to summon the Tahasildar and consequently dismissing the application, does not, therefore, call for any interference. It is, however, open to the petitioners to renew their request for issuing summons to the Tahasildar if the evidence of the Tahasildar is required for the purpose of disposal of the suit.

¶18

6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶20

Dated 19^th February, 2010 Lrkm.

Thondavarapu Malleswararao v. Chavithina Gangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thondavarapu Malleswararao v. Chavithina Gangamma

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

G. Aswin Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs M/S. Shriram Chits Ltd. Hyd

Sri N.Jayakrishna Vs the Commi.Munil.Corp.Hyd.

Pariti Suryakanthamma Vs Saripalli Srinivasa Rao

Mada Nageswararao, Vs Potta Bharathi

Mada Suryanarayana , Suresh, Vs Potta Simhadri Appala Narasimha Murthy

The Commissioner Mch Hyderabad Vs Ramachander D.Hindujal