Partly allowed

Meddi Kanthamma, v. Janga Susheela

Telangana HC26 Apr 2012CRP/2095/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes a trial court's dismissal of an interlocutory application seeking a 15-day adjournment due to the petitioner's illness, noting the trial court failed to assign reasons. It directs the trial court to fix a date for cross-examination and permits personal appearance for evidence. No order as to costs is made.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the trial court is directed to fix a date for cross-examination for the petitioner's personal appearance; the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, costs are not awarded

Meddi Kanthamma, Vs Janga Susheela — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.2095 OF 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, in I.A.No.495 of 2012 in I.A.No.314 of 2012 in A.T.C.No.4 of 2005.

¶4

The respondent herein filed the above A.T.C for eviction of the petitioners herein from the schedule property on the ground of wilful default. Pending the A.T.C, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.314 of 2012 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for crossexamination of R.W.1 at her house on the ground of ill health. The trial Court, by order dated 02.03.2012, allowed the said application by appointing the Advocate Commissioner and fixing her fee at Rs.2,000/tentatively payable by the first petitioner. The petitioners filed the impugned Interlocutory Application stating that the first petitioner is not in a position to pay the said amount of Rs.2,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner due to her ill health, and therefore, sought for cancellation of the said conditional order and to give 15 days time to her to appear before the Court and to give evidence. The trial Court through the impugned order dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶6

A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the trial Court has not assigned any reasons in dismissing the Interlocutory Application. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order can be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside.

¶7

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed directing the trial Court to fix a date for cross-examination of the first petitioner and

¶8

inform the same to her. On the date so fixed by the trial Court, the first petitioner shall appear before it personally and adduce evidence. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall

¶10

stand closed.

¶11

_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated: 26.04.2012 va

Meddi Kanthamma, v. Janga Susheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meddi Kanthamma, v. Janga Susheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Srinivasa Venkata Sai Vs Smt. Varahala Sobha Rani

Smt K.Jayashree Vs P.Sri Sai Ram

Mr. Srinivasa Venkata Sai, Vs S.Venkataiah

Adduri Mahesh Reddy, Vs The Sub-Registrar

Mukku Tulasi Durga, W/o.Kanaka Durga Prasad Vs Mukku Kanaka Durga Prasad

The Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Bejadi Rani