Allowed

Bakaram Narayana Reddy, v. Mankhal Laxmamma

Telangana HC20 Oct 2010CRP/4966/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, exercising powers under Article 226, allowed a civil revision petition and set aside an order dismissing an application to recall a witness for cross-examination. Relying on a prior order in a related civil revision petition involving a similarly placed defendant in the same suit, the court directed the lower court to recall the witness and fix a date for cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; I.A. No. 126 of 2007 allowed; Court below directed to recall D.W.1, fix date, and permit cross-examination.

Bakaram Narayana Reddy, Vs Mankhal Laxmamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4966 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 25.01.2007 passed in I.A. No. 126 of 2007 in O.S. No. 929 of 2004 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners herein, defendants 5, 6, 11 and 12 in the suit, praying the Court below to recall D.W.1 for further cross-examination, was dismissed.

¶5

The 3^rd respondent filed counter-affidavit opposing the petition.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that defendant No.13 in the present suit also filed a petition in I.A.No.207 of 2007 for recalling D.W.1 for cross-examination and when the Court below dismissed the said application, she filed civil revision petition in C.R.P. No. 1068 of 2007 before this Court and this Court allowed the same on 10.09.2008, setting aside the order impugned therein and issued certain directions to the Court below in regard to recalling D.W.1 for cross-examination.

¶7

I have perused the said order dated 10.09.2008 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 1068 of 2007. The petitioners herein and the petitioner therein sought the same relief of recalling D.W.1 for crossexamination and, though the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner therein, this Court set aside the dismissal order and allowed the civil revision petition. Thus, the petitioners herein also, who are the defendants in the same suit and similarly placed as that of the petitioner therein, are entitled to the same orders passed in C.R.P. No. 1068 of 2007.

¶8

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the present I.A. No. 126 of 2007 is allowed. The Court below is directed to recall D.W.1, fix a date and give opportunity to the counsel for the revision petitioners to cross-examine D.W.1 and if he fails to avail that opportunity, it shall be treated that he has no intention to cross-examine the witness.

¶9

The civil revision petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs.

¶10

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶11

20^th October, 2010 IBL

Bakaram Narayana Reddy, v. Mankhal Laxmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakaram Narayana Reddy, v. Mankhal Laxmamma

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

T.v.Krishna Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jonnalagadda Damodar Reddy Vs The Superintendent of Police

Rabin Mujumdar Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mali Hanmanth Reddy Vs Mali Venkat Reddy

Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

S.Mahabub Bee Vs The Superintendent of Police