Dismissed

Singi Reddy Padma Reddy, v. RoyalEducational Society

Telangana HC12 Jun 2012CRP/1176/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three common revisions were dismissed. The High Court held that the Additional District Judge correctly allowed interim applications to summon a Sub-Registrar and recall a witness to authenticate sale deeds. The Court found that the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove the defendant's ability to sign in English given the specific dispute raised.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed all three revisions (C.R.P.Nos. 1170, 1176 and 1513 of 2012); no order as to costs.

Singi Reddy Padma Reddy, Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

C.R.P.Nos.1170, 1176 and 1513 of 2012

¶3

DATE:12-06-2012

¶4

C.R.P.No.1170 OF 2012
BETWEEN
Singi Reddy Padma Reddy	AND	…Petitioner
Royal Educational Society,
Rep. by its Secretary/Chairman A.Prashanth Kumar
		…Respondent
C.R.P.No.1176 OF 2012
BETWEEN
Singi Reddy Padma Reddy	AND	…Petitioner
Royal Educational Society,
Rep. by its Secretary/Chairman A.Prashanth Kumar
C.R.P.No.1513 OF 2012		…Respondent
BETWEEN
Singi Reddy Padma Reddy	AND	…Petitioner
Royal Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary/Chairman A.Prashanth Kumar
		…Respondent

¶5

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶7

C.R.P.Nos.1170, 1176 and 1513 of 2012

¶8

COMMON ORDER:

¶9

All these revisions are arising out of common order and the parties are one and the same. Therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶10

By the common impugned order dated 28.2.2012 III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), R.R.District allowed I.A.Nos.167, 168, 169 and 170 of 2012 in O.S.No.1053 of 2008 filed by the plaintiff to reopen the case of plaintiff; to receive certain documents; to summon the Sub-Registrar, Medchal to produce the copies of the sale deeds mentioned thereunder; and to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the sale deed and letter dated 22.9.2005 respectively. C.R.P.No.1170 of 2012 is filed against the order in I.A.No.168 of 2012; C.R.P.No.1176 of 2012 is filed against the order in I.A.No.169 of 2012; and C.R.P.No.1513 of 2012 is filed against the order in I.A.No.170 of 2012.

¶11

Heard the arguments and perused the record more particularly the impugned order passed by the Court below.

¶12

Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent herein laid the above suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.11.2005 allegedly executed by the defendant-petitioner herein. Trial was commenced and the examination of P.W.1 was also over. At this stage, since the petitioner herein disputed the fact that he is not the signatory to the document and that he never used to sign in English, the plaintiffrespondent herein filed the impugned I.As in order to establish that the

¶13

defendant-petitioner herein executed the documents and signed them in English.

¶14

This Court is of the view that in considering the procedural laws, there cannot be any hard and fast rules. Every case depends upon its own facts and circumstances. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the impugned order the Court below simply recorded the decisions relied on by the petitioner but has not considered the same in proper perspective.

¶15

As seen from the impugned order, the Court below in the first limb of the order observed the decisions placed by the petitioner herein and after recording the same, it has given findings in para No.9, which runs as follows:

¶16

“9. In the present case, the burden to prove that the defendant can sign in English is on the plaintiff. To discharge the burden, the plaintiff confronted certified copies of the documents said to have been executed by the defendant where it is shown that the defendant has signed in English. But the defendant denied the signatures in the certified copies of the documents vide document Nos.1757 of 1985, 510 of 1983, 511 of 1983, 512 of 1983, 1202 of 1983, 6183 of 1983, 6184 of 1983, 6187 of 1983, 6188 of 1983, 6185 of 1983 and 6186 of 1983. Thus, the only remedy left to the petitioner/plaintiff is to summon the Sub-Registrar where the documents are registered to prove that the documents executed by the defendant. Since there is a pleading that the defendant executed the agreement of sale, the contentions raised by the respondent/defendant that that there is no pleading and as such the plaintiff cannot be permitted to prove is untenable.”

¶17

From the said paragraph, it is evident that the Court below considered the decisions relied on by the plaintiff-respondent herein and furthermore the Court below has recorded the reasoning for allowing the petitions. In the same way, the Court below considered the decisions placed by the defendant-petitioner herein also and in paragraph 11 it has recorded the reasons for not relying on the decisions submitted by the petitioner herein, which runs thus:

¶18

“11. Thus, as the onus shifted to the plaintiff to prove that the defendant also sign in English, he has to mark the document where the defendant purportedly to have signed in English and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent by allowing these

¶19

petitions and the citation relied on by the learned counsel for the defendant stated supra are not applicable to the facts of the case in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in 2011 (2) Law Summary page 189 discussed supra.”

¶20

The Court below rightly observed that when the petitioner herein disputed his signatures on the documents in question, it is the duty of the plaintiff-respondent herein to prove the same by way of adducing cogent evidence. The same will not amount to fill up the lacunae and it is only with an intent to establish the case of the plaintiff that too when the burden is on them to prove their case.

¶21

As far as the document dated 22.9.2005 is concerned, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiffrespondent herein has not taken any steps to file the same before the Court during the chief-examination or cross-examination and hence, he cannot introduce a new document, which is not pleaded in the plaint. This Court carefully considered the said submission. It is true that the said document is not pleaded in the plaint, but at the same time, the suit itself is filed on the basis of an agreement of sale executed by the petitioner herein. Hence, the plaintiff-respondent herein filed the said agreement of sale for the purpose of the suit. Since the petitioner herein disputed the signatures on the document more particularly it is his contention that he is not in the habit of signing in English and also he is not conversant in English, it necessitated the plaintiff-respondent herein to produce the same before the Court, which is prior to the execution of agreement of sale. The said document is only corroborative in nature and if the petitioner is aggrieved over the same, he can cross-examine on the said aspect and also he can question the authenticity and genuineness of the said document. Thus the impugned order passed by the Court below in allowing the petitions under challenge with an intention to pass suitable orders in the suit and for proper adjudication of the matter cannot be interfered with.

¶22

For the foregoing reasons, all the revisions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶23

_______________ RAJA ELANGO, J. JUNE 12, 2012 Tsr

Singi Reddy Padma Reddy, v. RoyalEducational Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singi Reddy Padma Reddy, v. RoyalEducational Society

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

Smt.Poojari Syamala Vs Poojari Somasundar

Jujjavarapu Rajendra Prasad, Vs Jujjuvarapu Ujwala

Y.Show Reddy, Vs Sri B.Arogya Reddy

Yerramsetty Lakshminatha Rao, Vs Chanamalla Sanyasamma , Chantamma (died)

Velamati Swathi, Vs Velamati Ravi Kiran

Muthyala Pothaiah (Died) Vs Peethala Appa Rao