Dismissed

P.K.Nagaraj v. Smt. Bapanapalli Ellamma

Telangana HC4 Nov 2011CRP/4133/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In civil revision petitions, Justice Ramana dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the lower court's refusal to reopen a suit or I.A. He held that the lower court acted reasonably in lack of evidence regarding the availability of admitted signatures with the Tahsildar, dismissing the revisions without costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions dismissed without costs.

P.K.Nagaraj Vs Smt. Bapanapalli Ellamma — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

C.R.P. No. 4133 of 2011 and C.R.P. (SR) No. 24764 of 2011

¶3

Common order:

¶4

These two civil revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 29.07.2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District, dismissing the applications in I.A. Nos. 484, 485 and 486 of 2011 in O.S. No. 17 of 2005, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, praying to re-open the suit, to call for certain documents from the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District, and to re-open I.A. No. 402 of 2008 filed by him praying to send Ex. A1agreement of sale to an handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures thereon with that of the admitted signatures. The present C.R.Ps. relate to I.A.Nos.484 and 486 of 2011.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the common order under revision.

¶6

As can be seen from the common order under revision, the petitioner earlier filed I.A. No. 402 of 2008 praying to send Ex. A1-agreement to an handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures of D.Ws.1 and 2 thereon. The said I.A. was allowed and accordingly Ex. A1 was sent to handwriting expert. However, on 10.06.2010, the handwriting expert returned Ex.A1-agreement of sale with an endorsement to send Ex.A1 along with the admitted signatures and thumb impressions of D.Ws.1 and 2, which

¶7

are nearer to the date of execution of Ex.A1. The petitioner sought time to produce the admitted signatures and thumb impressions of D.Ws.1 and 2. As sought by the petitioner, the Court granted time till 26.08.2010. However, as the petitioner failed to produce the admitted signatures and thumb impressions of D.Ws.1 and 2, the Court closed the said I.A. on 26.08.2010. Thereafter, the evidence of the parties was closed. When the suit is at the stage of arguments and after lapse of nearly 11 months from the date of closure of I.A. No. 402 of 2010, the petitioner filed the present applications.

¶8

Though the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the applications, contends that the defendants have submitted claim forms for issuance of Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds, to the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District, and in acknowledgment of receipt of Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds, the defendants have issued receipts, and as they are available with the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District, the said documents should be called for from him, so as to send the signatures and thumb impressions of D.Ws.1 and 2 existing thereon to an handwriting expert for comparison with that of their signatures on Ex. A1-agreement, the fact remains, nothing was elicited in the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 that they have applied for issuance of Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds to the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District, and that they have issued signed receipt in acknowledgement of receipt of the Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds. Thus,

¶9

the Court below came to the conclusion that it was doubtful whether the documents sought to be called for by the petitioner, were available with the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District, and that even if they were available, it is not known whether they are nearer to the date of execution of Ex. A1-agreement. That being so, and the documents sought to be called for by the petitioner, not being admitted documents, the Court below felt it not proper to call for the said documents from the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District, for sending the signatures of D.Ws.1 and 2 existing thereon to an handwriting expert for comparison with their signatures on Ex. A1-agreement, by reopening the suit and I.A. No. 402 of 2008, and accordingly dismissed the present I.As, by the common order under revision. I refuse to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the Court below has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in a reasonable manner.

¶10

The civil revision petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed, however, without costs.

¶11

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶12

4^th November, 2011. IBL

P.K.Nagaraj v. Smt. Bapanapalli Ellamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Nagaraj v. Smt. Bapanapalli Ellamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Nagabushanam Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments

C.Babu Reddy Vs C.v.Venkatasiva Rao

Smt.Lakshmi Vs S.Ramakrishnan

M.Subhadramma Vs P.Surendra Reddy

K.M.Natarajan Vs S.S.R.Kamadalam

M. Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs M. Abbi Reddy