Allowed

Zainab Najafali Khan, v. Tathima Mirza

Telangana HC11 Oct 2012CRP/2350/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition filed against the order returning an application for recording video conference evidence. It directed the lower court to entertain, number, and dispose of the application on merits after hearing both sides within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to represent the I.A.; lower Court directed to dispose of same on merits within one month; CRP.s disposed of as infructuous.

Zainab Najafali Khan, Vs Tathima Mirza — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2350 of 2012

¶3

Date: 11.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Zainab Najafali Khan

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Fathima Mirza and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.Goda Rama Lakshmi

¶11

Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri M.S. Srinivasa Iyengar

¶12

Counsel for other respondents:--

¶13

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This civil revision petition is filed against the return of the I.A. (SR).No.974 of 2012 in O.S.No.70 of 2008 by the learned XII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶16

I have heard Smt.Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.S.Srinivasa Iyengar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶17

The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the abovementioned I.A.

¶18

to record the evidence of proposed P.W.5, who is presently residing in U.S.A., through video conferencing. This petition was returned by the lower Court on as many as three occasions mainly on the ground that if such a request is accepted, the proposed witness will not be administered oath and will not swear before the Court on the correctness of the contents of the chief affidavit.

¶19

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra vs. Praful B.Desai and anothe r^[1] and of this Court in Bodala Murali Krishna vs. Bodala Prathima^[2] .

¶20

In my opinion, as the petition was returned, it is not appropriate for this Court to pronounce upon merits of the application. The lower Court ought to have numbered the petition and disposed of the same on merits after hearing both sides instead of returning the same repeatedly.

¶21

Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to represent the I.A. within two weeks. If the application is accordingly represented, the lower Court shall entertain, number and dispose of the same after hearing all the parties, on merits, within a period of one month from the date of representation of the application by the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to take return of the original file relating to I.A.(SR)No.974 of 2012 from the Registry.

¶22

Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶23

As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.Nos.3529 and 3131 of 2012 shall stand

¶24

disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

_________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶26

11^th October, 2012 GHN

¶27

[1] 2003(1) ALD (Crl.) 848 (SC) [2] 2007 (2) ALD 72

Zainab Najafali Khan, v. Tathima Mirza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zainab Najafali Khan, v. Tathima Mirza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.Timma Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

Boddeda Prasad Vs The Tahsildar

Edara Venkata Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Gutha Narsaiah Vs Nallani Pedavemgulappa

Chellaboyina Diwakara Rao, Vs Nuni Ramesh Babu (Died)

C. Jhansi Laxmi Vs Kothapalli Venkatappa Naidu