High Court dismissed the C.R.P. against an order allowing the plaintiff to summon a witness to prove an affidavit. The court held no prejudice was caused as the petitioner could cross-examine the witness under Article 227 jurisdiction.
C.R.P. No. 668 of 2011 dismissed. 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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
C.R.P. No. 668 of 2011
Oral order:
This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 21.01.2011 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district, allowing the application in I.A. No. 1720 of 2010 in O.S. No. 466 of 2009, filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff praying to summon one Mr. G. Mallesh Yadav, to prove Ex. A4.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.
It is the contention of the petitioner that since respondent No.1plaintiff relied on Ex. A4, it is for him to prove the same, and he cannot seek to prove the same through others, and as such, the Court below committed an error in allowing the present application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff for summoning one Mr. G. Mallesh Yadav to prove Ex. A4. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Ex. A4, is Declaration Report, which is said to have been signed by the President, Secretary and Advisor/Members of Yashodhara Nagar Colony Association. By summoning Mr. G. Mallesh Yadav, who is said to be the General Secretary of the said Association, and who is alleged to have signed on Ex. A4, as a witness on behalf of respondent No.1-plaintiff, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, because the petitioner would be provided an opportunity to cross-examine him with respect to Ex. A4. That being so, no exception
can be taken to the order under revision, passed by the Court below allowing the present application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff, seeking to summon Sri. G. Mallesh Yadav, to prove Ex. A4.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
11th March, 2011 IBL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the order of the Court below allowing the plaintiff to summon a witness to prove an affidavit.
Whether summoning the General Secretary to sign the affidavit on behalf of the Association would cause prejudice to the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT NO.1
N.V. RAMANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
