Single judge dismissed three civil revision petitions under Article 227 challenging an order allowing amendment and reopening of evidence. The court found no merit in interference regarding the trial court's discretion.
Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed; liberty to raise objections before lower court within two months; 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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
C.R.P.Nos.917, 997 & 998 of 2008
COMMON ORDER:
Heard both sides.
Since common questions arise in these revision petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
These revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner/defendant, are arise out of the common order dated 29.12.2007 passed by the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.Nos.906, 907 & 908 of 2007 in O.S.No.2722 of 2008. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.906 of 2007 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the evidence of PW.1, I.A.No.907 of 2007 under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the claim, I.A.No.908 of 2007 under Order 18 Rule 17 to recall PW.1 for further evidence and I.A.No.909 of 2007 under Order 8 Rule 14(3) to receive the document.
The Court below after taking the limitation, merits and the facts and circumstances into consideration, allowed the applications.
Though the trial Court has to give an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant on all the applications, but however, having regard to the fact that exercise of discretion by the trial Court is only a step into the aid of conducting of trial, I do not find any merit warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioner/defendant is at liberty to raise all such objections before the lower Court and the lower Court, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner dispose of the suit itself within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
24th June, 2010 Js.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether exercise of discretion by the trial Court in allowing applications warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether common civil revision petitions should be disposed of by a common order.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
B. Prakash Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
