Allowed

Reyya Seethamma v. Dasari Mohana Rao

Telangana HC11 Oct 2012CRP/2111/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the High Court allowed the petition to correct the lower court's unjustified rejection of an application to produce a sale deed admitted in evidence by a witness during cross-examination, directing the trial court to admit it in evidence.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was allowed; the document shall be admitted in evidence on behalf of the petitioner; the trial court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law; miscellaneous appl

Reyya Seethamma Vs Dasari Mohana Rao — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2111 OF 2012

Dt:- 11.10.2012

Between:-

Reyya Seethamma

… Petitioner

and Dasari Mohana Rao

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

This Court made the following:-

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶11

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2111 OF 2012

¶12

ORDER: -

¶13

Petitioner/defendant had sought production of a document, dated 30.03.1981, to be received on his behalf during the trial. The affidavit of the petitioner states that the said document was mis-placed and could not be filed along with the written statement. Court below, however, has rejected the petitioner’s request on the ground that the document is not clearly visible and does not serve any purpose by permitting it to be received in evidence.

¶14

It is seen from the evidence of P.W.3 recorded on 23.09.2011 before the court below that during cross-examination by the defendant, he was confronted with the very same unregistered sale deed, dated 30.03.1981, and he admitted his signatures appearing therein. In normal course the said document which was confronted could have been marked through P.W.3 at that stage itself. It appears, however, that the same was not allowed and the petitioner/defendant was asked to file a separate application. The present application viz., I.A.No.177 of

¶15

2011 filed for that purpose was, however, rejected under the impugned order for the reasons aforesaid.

¶16

I am unable to see any justification for rejection to receive the said document when the same was also confronted through P.W.3. Further mere receiving of document and further allowing it to be marked would not amount to accepting the proof and relevancy of the document as burden in that regard is to be discharged by the person producing the document. It is, therefore, for the defendant to establish the proof and relevancy of the document during trial. At this stage of the present I.A.No.177 of 2011 where the document is requested to be received on behalf of the defendant, the rejection of the said application under the impugned order is, therefore, not justified.

¶17

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The said document shall be admitted in evidence on behalf of the petitioner and the trial court shall thereafter proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶19

11.10.2012 lmv

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶21

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2111 OF 2012

¶22

11.10.2012

¶23

lmv

Reyya Seethamma v. Dasari Mohana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reyya Seethamma v. Dasari Mohana Rao

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

K. Devaiah, Vs The A.P. Schedule Caste Coop. Finance Corporation

T.Satyanarayana Vs Lakshma Reddy , Lachi Reddy

K. Devaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kamma Satyanarayana Vs Meka Nageswara Rao

Verupanda Krishna Murthy Vs Verupanda Rama Rao (died)

Arirneni Vajramma Vs The Special Deputy Collector