Allowed

Garla Radhika v. G.Santosh Kumar

Telangana HC9 Nov 2012CRP/1992/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed civil revisions against orders rejecting applications to recall a witness and receive fresh documents. It set aside the lower court order allowing recalls to ensure substantial justice and direct a speedy trial completion.

What did the court decide?

The impugned common order is set aside; IA 154 and 155 of 2011 are allowed; recall of R.W.1 and marking of documents permitted; trial to conclude within three months.

Garla Radhika Vs G.Santosh Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1992 and 5012 of 2012

BETWEEN

Garla Radhika.

... PETITIONER

AND

G. Santosh Kumar.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. D. PRAMADA Counsel for the Respondent: MR. K. RAMA MOHAN MAHADEVA The Court made the following:

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

Both revision petitions are directed against the common order passed in I.A.No.154 and 155 of 2011 dated 22.02.2012.

¶15

2. I.A.No.154 of 2011 was moved by the petitioner for recalling R.W.1 for the purpose of fresh documents to be marked and I.A.No.155 of 2011 was moved to receive fresh documents 1 to 5 listed in the petition for the purpose of marking by R.W.1.

¶16

3. Heard Smt. D. Pramada, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Rama Mohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent contested the said applications by filing counter, primarily, contending that R.W.1 was examined about 1½ years ago in chief examination and subsequently, she is not prosecuting the matter diligently and several applications were filed earlier seeking more or less the same relied and were already dismissed and once again the present applications are filed only to drag on the proceedings.

¶18

5. The Court below, under the impugned order, found that the present applications are filed ignoring the earlier orders but, however, while dismissing the applications ordered the petitioner herein to file separate petition for marking of documents, which were not covering the orders passed earlier. Aggrieved by the rejection of both the said applications, the present revisions are preferred.

¶19

6. It is true, as pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner has not been diligent in following the proceedings in the O.P.No.2 of 2007 and her applications I.A.No.117 and 118 of 2010 to recall R.W.1 and to receive ration card of P.W.2 were dismissed earlier.

¶20

7. Petitioner, however, states in the affidavit filed in support of the present applications that she proposes to file five different documents to substantiate that P.W.2, who was examined by respondent herein, was not residing nearby the house of the petitioner or the respondent and in order to establish the same, she intends to recall herself and mark the aforesaid documents.

¶21

8. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the evidence of P.W.2 is with reference to the events that occurred in 2008 and prior thereto and the present documents, in any case, have no relevance.

¶22

9. The merits or the probative value of the present documents need not be considered, at this stage, as the applications are only to receive the

¶23

documents and to permit to recall R.W.1 for the purpose of marking of documents. Keeping in view the substantial justice, I am of the view that both the said applications deserve to be allowed,

¶24

as R.W.1 would thereby get adequate opportunity to submit her defence in support of her case and as such, the procedural technicalities ought not to stand in the way of advancement of substantial justice.

¶25

10. In the circumstances, the impugned common order is set aside and both the aforesaid IA’s shall stand allowed. Within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Court below shall fix the date for hearing of the OP and on that date, R.W.1 be permitted to recall herself for the purpose of marking of the documents and thereafter, the trial in OP shall proceed further, in accordance with law, and the Court below to dispose of the OP within a period of three (3) months thereafter.

¶26

The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶28

November 9, 2012 DSK

Garla Radhika v. G.Santosh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garla Radhika v. G.Santosh Kumar

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

Gundam Bali Reddy, Vs Gundam Lakshmi Devamma

Smt.Dr.Vaddiparthi Shyamala Devi Vs Dinavahi Sundari Venkata Rao

M/s.Sree and Sree Developers Vs Ganta Prasada Rao

Kamadi Govaraju, Vs Sangadi Surya Rao

Dukka Durgamba, Vs The Executive Engineer

Garla Radhika Vs G. Santhosh Kumar