The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for re-recorded evidence under Order 18, Rule 17 r/w. Sec. 151 CPC. The Court held there was no illegality as the witness was already cross-examined.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no 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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.5815 of 2011
Date:3 0 th December, 2011
Between:
Shaik Nannu Bhu W/o.Shaik Abdul Saheb ..... Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
Shaik Hussain Peeran Saheb S/o.Udyam Peeran Saheb
.....Respondent/Defendant
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.5815 of 2011
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 08.11.2011, passed in I.A.No.373 of 2011 in O.S.No.122 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla, Kurnool District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 CPC.
2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiff in O.S.No.122 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla, are: The petitioner filed the suit for perpetual injunction. She adduced evidence on her behalf. Thereafter, the respondent/defendant adduced evidence on his behalf. When the case stood posted for
arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.373 fo 2011 under Order 18, Rule 17 r/w.Sec.151 CPC seeking permission to give evidence once again. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, that her evidence has not been properly recorded and there are some typographical mistakes in her deposition. It is pertinent to refer para.4 of the affidavit, which reads as hereunder:
“I submit that in my cross examination in page No.2 from bottom to top it was mentioned “It is true that I have sold the entire property which was gifted to me by my father under Ex.A3 to said Vallapureddy Obulamma… which is not correct and I never completed the registration also to the said Obulamma. Like that there are some more submissions which were in the crossexamination are not as per my acceptation.”
The respondent/defendant filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner moved the application when the case stood posted for arguments on 30.06.2011 and that the evidence of the witnesses came to be recorded in the open Court.
3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the entire cross-examination of PW.1 got typed to his dictation in the presence of the petitioner’s counsel and therefore, there are no justifiable grounds to permit the petitioner to re-examine her and thereby proceeded to dismiss the petition, by order, dated 08.11.2011. Hence, this revision.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an illiterate and her evidence has not been properly recorded.
6. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The learned Junior Civil Judge has categorically mentioned in the order that the evidence has been recorded in his presence and whatever the
witness stated has been recorded. The contention of the petitioner that she is an illiterate and therefore, some mistakes have been crept in to the questions put to her in the cross-examination cannot be sustained. The petitioner allowed the defendant to adduce evidence and thereafter, evidence on both the sides came to be closed. When the case stood posted for arguments, the petitioner came up with an application under Order 18, Rule 17 r/w. Sec.151 CPC. Had there been any mistakes in recording of the deposition, the petitioner must have been moved the application at least before commencement of the evidence on behalf of the respondent/defendant. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not see any illegality or irregularly in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
Date:30th December, 2011.
cs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.5815 of 2011
Date:3 0 th December, 2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 to set aside the dismissal of an application for permission to re-record evidence.
Whether the learned Civil Judge erred in refusing to allow a late re-examination given the witness was already cross-examined and evidence was closed.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shaik Nannu Bhu
Shaik Hussain Peeran Saheb
B.Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
