This revision petition challenged the lower court's order permitting the plaintiff to summon advocates to testify about attestation of affidavits from a prior concluded suit. The High Court held the order was not illegal or irregular.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; 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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2713 OF 2011
ORDER:
Challenging the order, dated 8.7.2010 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, in I.A.No.1168 of 2010 in O.S.No.460 of 2008, the present civil revision petition is filed.
The petitioner is the 4th defendant, respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3 and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff before the Court below.
The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants for permanent injunction. Pending the suit, he filed I.A.No.1168 of 2010 under Order 16 Rule 1 (3) to permit him to summon the Advocates to give evidence of their attestation. He stated in his affidavit that at the time of filing the suit, he filed the third party affidavits of Gollapalle Venkataramana Reddy and Konda Venkat Reddy given in O.S.No.110/1989 and they passed away long back and their affidavits support his case and to establish the contents of the said affidavits, it is necessary to summon the advocates who attested the same. The defendants opposed the said application.
After hearing both the parties, the Court below allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th defendant filed this revision.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.
On a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the vendor
of the plaintiff’s vendor was a party to O.S.No.110 of 1989 and third party affidavits of Gollapalle Venkataramana Reddy and Konda Venkat Reddy were given in the said suit and she succeeded in the said suit and the appeal thereon. It is also clear that the defendants herein pleaded ignorance of the same. The persons, who gave affidavits, died long back. It is the case of the plaintiff that in order to prove the contents of such affidavits, it is necessary to examine the advocates, who attested those affidavits. The question as to whether those affidavits are relevant or not to the facts of the case on hand, is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. Now, the claim is only to summon the advocates to examine them about the affidavits given in O.S.No.110 of 1989. Mere summoning of the advocates as witnesses does not cause any prejudice to the defendants, as it is always open to them to cross-examine the said advocates.
In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
__________________ Justice N.V. Ramana
Date:15th July, 2011 Nn.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2713 OF 2011
15.7.2011
Nn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court committed any error in allowing the plaintiff to summon advocates to testify regarding the attestation of affidavits from a concluded suit.
Whether the step of summoning advocates would cause prejudice to the opposing defendants.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
4th Defendant
Defendants 1 to 3
Plaintiff
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
