Dismissed

Sri I.v.Krishna Rao, v. Sri M.Savithri Devi

Telangana HC16 Apr 2010CRP/4680/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order in twin civil revision petitions set aside the trial court proceedings, clarified the timelines for defendants to adduce evidence regarding a will, dismissed the petitions, and discharged costs against the petitioners. The court noted the defect in counsel representation for defendants and allowed supplementary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to adduce evidence without adjournments and complete it on or before 25.06.2010. Suit to be disposed of accordingly.

Sri I.v.Krishna Rao, Vs Sri M.Savithri Devi — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4680 of 2009 & 4681 of 2009

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

1. Civil Revision Petition No. 4680 of 2009 is filed challenging the order dated 08.07.2009 in I.A. No. 2824 of 2008 in O.S. No.277 of 2005, on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to reopen the suit to lead further evidence on behalf of the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2, was allowed.

¶5

2. Whereas, Civil Revision Petition No.4681 of 2009 is filed challenging the order dated 08.07.2009 in I.A. No.2825 of 2008 in the above suit, whereunder and whereby petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, to recall P.W.1 for further crossexamination with respect to the certified copy of will dated 29.6.1988 said to have been marked through P.W.1 as Ex.A9, was allowed.

¶6

3. Heard both sides.

¶7

4. No doubt, one of the counsel appearing for the defendants in the suit, reported no cross-examination when Ex.A9 was marked through P.W.1. It seems another advocate on record was conducting the case on

¶8

behalf of the defendants. In view of the fact that the defendants are claiming the property through will dated 29.6.1988, an issue has been framed with regard to the will, and so, an opportunity can be given to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 to cross-examine P.W.1 with reference to Ex.A9 only. Perhaps, that is the reason why the trial Court also allowed the petition. The said order needs no interference by this Court. Unless a case is reopened, the question of recalling the P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination does not arise, and so, the petition to reopen the suit was also rightly allowed.

¶9

5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, in the absence of the counsel for the defendants, the evidence on behalf of the defendants was closed and the suit was posted for arguments. Therefore, the defendants can be given a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the will including examination of its attestors, if any.

¶10

6. Mr. M.Kamaraju, the learned counsel for the respondents herein, who is also conducting the case in trial Court on behalf of the defendants, undertakes to complete the evidence and arguments in the suit if he is given a chance and if the other counsel co-operates, by the end of June, 2010.

¶11

7. Therefore, in view of the undertaking, it is made clear that the defendants shall adduce evidence without taking any adjournments and complete their evidence on

¶12

or before 25.6.2010, and thereafter, the suit shall be disposed of in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the counsel appearing for the plaintiff shall co-operate with the court. If, for any reason, the defendants did not examine their witnesses and complete their evidence on or before 25.6.2010, the trial Court shall close the evidence on behalf of the defendants and post it for arguments.

¶13

8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the suit is posted to 14.6.2010 by the trial Court. In view of the fact that, this Court passed a conditional order, the trial Court shall advance the date of hearing of the suit to 19.04.2010, and the learned counsel appearing for the defendants shall inform the trial Court enabling the trial Court to suo motu advance the case to 19.04.2010.

¶14

9. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶15

(K.C.Bhanu, J.)

¶16

16.04.2010 DRK

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶18

COMMON ORDER

¶19

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4680 of 2009 & 4681 of 2009

¶21

16.04.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4680 of 2009 & 4681 of 2009

¶23

16.04.2010

¶24

Civil Revision Petition No.4680 of 2009 :

¶25

Between: I.V. Krishna Rao …Petitioner And M.Savithri Devi & others …Respondents Civil Revision Petition No. 4681 of 2009: Between: I.V.Krishna Rao …Petitioner And M.Savithri Devi & others …Respondents

Sri I.v.Krishna Rao, v. Sri M.Savithri Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri I.v.Krishna Rao, v. Sri M.Savithri Devi

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

M. Satya Srivatsava Vs Anitha

Tusti Veera Swamy, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector

Puli Rajireddy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer (Lao)

The Orinental Insurance Company Limited, Vs M/s. Satyanarayana Cotton Industries

Mandava Lakshmi Tapati Vs Gudivada Venkata Subbarao

Uppala Raj Lakshmi Vs Linga Sitaramaiah , Sitaramulu (Died per L.Rs.)