In this civil revision, the court dismissed the petition challenging the lower court's order rejecting the summoning of vakalat. The court held that no reason was assigned for summoning it and it was unrelated to the suit for money recovery.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6111 OF 2009
Between:
Rajani Chandra and others
PETITIONERS
AND
B. Janardhan Reddy
....RESPONDENT
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6111 OF 2009
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 14.10.2009, in I.A.No. 495 of 2008 in O.S.No.4 of 2005, on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed to call for vakalat in Criminal Petition No.591 of 1999 on the file of this Court, was dismissed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The suit is at the stage of cross-examination of DW.2. The suit is filed for recovery of amount. It is not on the basis of cheques said to have been issued by the present petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent was in the habit of signing the signature in different manner and to prove the case of the petitioners herein, summoning of vakalat is necessary.
5. No reason is assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to why the vakalat in Crl.P.No.591 of 1999 on the file of this Court is necessary for disposal of the case. There must be reason or purpose for summoning a vakalat in Crl.P.No.591 of 1999 on the file of this Court. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the same. Hence, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order in view of the fact that summoning of the vakalat was nothing to do with the controversy in the present suit, which is filed for the recovery of the money. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ K.C. BHANU, J
April 01, 2010 MD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the summoning of vakalat for Criminal Petition No.591 of 1999 is necessary for disposal of the present recovery suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajani Chandra and others
B. Janardhan Reddy
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
