Dismissed

Moku Narsimha Reddy, v. Narra Madhusudhan Reddy

Telangana HC15 Mar 2010CRP/5268/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court's order admitting documents filed by a witness to support his evidence. The court held that such admission is legal under Order XVI Rule 7 CPC and the impugned order has no infirmities warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 5268 of 2008 dismissed; no order as to costs.

Moku Narsimha Reddy, Vs Narra Madhusudhan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5268 OF 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

Moku Narsimha Reddy and others

¶8

.....PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

Narra Madhusudhan Reddy and others

¶11

....RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶14

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5268 OF 2008

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order, dated 12.11.2008, in O.S.No.29 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, whereunder and whereby, the documents filed by PW.3 – witness, who was summoned to give evidence on behalf of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, in support of his evidence were received by the trial Court.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that these documents have not been listed in the plaint; and that there is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) for production of documents through witness and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that under Order XVI Rule 7 C.P.C., the Court can direct any person to produce the documents or to give evidence and hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or incorrect and hence, prays to dismiss the revision petition.

¶19

4. PW.3 was summoned by the trial Court to give evidence on behalf of respondent No.1/plaintiff. At the time of cross-examination, he filed some documents. Other side raised objections to receive the documents, as PW.3 is not a party and he is only a witness. Regarding admissibility and receiving of documents, the trial court asked PW.3 to file those documents with memo after issuing notice to other side. He filed a memo stating that his evidence is based upon certain documents. Therefore, these documents are necessary for the purpose of his evidence. The relevancy or admissibility of those documents can be decided at subsequent stage. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There

¶21

shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

K.C. BHANU, J

¶23

March 15, 2010 MD/YVL

Moku Narsimha Reddy, v. Narra Madhusudhan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moku Narsimha Reddy, v. Narra Madhusudhan Reddy

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

The E.S.I.Corporation, Vs Usha Kiran Movies 1-10-76

Papireddy Ravindra Reddy Vs Nagalapuram Adisesha Reddy

P. Ashok Kumar Vs Smt. Maisamma

Pilli Krishna Vs S.Bhoopal Reddy

Smt.Mumtaz Begum Vs Shaik Ibrahim

Smt. P.Kavitha Vs E. Venkateswarlu