Allowed

Narayana v. Smt. Pani Bai (died) per L.R.S.

Telangana HC18 Oct 2012CRP/2693/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order sets aside three revision petitions challenging trial court orders dismissing applications to recall a witness, produce link documents, and reopen evidence for limited confrontation, directing immediate compliance to expedite suit disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; IA Nos. 17, 18, and 19 of 2012 allowed; witness to appear for confrontation; cost deposit of Rs. 5,000 ordered from petitioners.

Narayana Vs Smt. Pani Bai (died) per L.R.S. — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

C.R.P. NOs. 2705, 2693 & 2694 of 2012

¶3

Date of Judgment: 18.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Narayana and others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

Smt. Pani Bai (died) per L.Rs and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

C.R.P. NOs. 2705, 2693 & 2694 of 2012

¶12

COMMON ORDER:

¶13

These three revision petitions are filed by the defendants in OS No. 4158 of 2012 on the file of the I- Addl. Rent Controller-XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.

¶14

The respondents/plaintiffs herein have led their evidence and it is stated that during the course of crossexamination of P.W.1, the petitioners/defendants put some questions with regard to link documents, P.W.1 admitted the custody of the said link documents, but they are not filed in the court. Therefore, the petitioners/defendants obtained certified copies of link

¶15

documents and sought those documents to be confronted to P.W.1 by reopening the plaintiffs’ evidence and recalling P.W.1. The petitioners/defendants filed IA No. 18 of 2012 to receive the link documents for confronting to P.W.1, IA No. 17 of 2012 to reopen the evidence of plaintiffs and IA No. 19 of 2012 to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of confronting the said link documents. All these three applications were contested and dismissed by the trial court under separate orders which are impugned in these three revisions by the petitioners/defendants.

¶16

I have heard Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and Mr. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that there is a dispute with regard to a lane and since the plaintiffs and the defendants had purchased their respective properties from a common vender, it is necessary to confront the link documents to P.W.1 in cross-examination. The learned counsel, therefore, states that though in cross-examination P.W.1 was put to questions, he did not produce the documents, hence the petitioners/defendants had to procure certified copies of link documents which are sought to received in evidence and confronted to P.W.1. He, therefore, submits that since for a limited purpose of confronting the link documents, recall of P.W.1 was sought, the trial court could have allowed the applications.

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, places strong reliance upon the order of this Court in CRP No. 1114 of 2009, dated 3.2.2011 between the same parties and by the said order, this Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months and the said period has already expired by June, 2012 itself. The learned counsel sought to rely upon the report of Advocate-Commissioner which is part of the record before the trial Court and submits that the suit is substantially based on easement of necessity and as such the investigation with regard to the link documents of the plaintiffs is not necessary.

¶19

I have considered the submissions as aforesaid and I have seen the relief sought for in the main suit as is evident from the plaint, particularly the relief No.1 (a) which is sought for the purpose of seeking a right of way on the northern side of the plaintiffs’ property in the lane and for mandatory injunction to remove the construction like the doors, windows fixed and the trees on the northern side of the plaintiffs’ property. The contest between the parties appears to be with regard to the said lane and according to the petitioners/defendants, bringing on record the link documents of the plaintiffs is essential and therefore, they sought limited opportunity of confronting those documents to P.W.1 in cross-examination.

¶20

Keeping in view the rival contentions and in the interest of substantial justice, I am inclined to give one

¶21

opportunity to the petitioners/defendants for the purpose of confronting the link documents to P.W.1 in crossexamination. Accordingly the impugned orders of the trial court are set aside and IA Nos. 17 to 19 of 2012 are allowed.

¶22

It is stated that the suit stands posted on 30.10.2012. It is directed that P.W.1 shall be present himself in the trial court on 30.10.2012 and the petitioners/defendants shall cross-examine him with reference to the link documents for the limited purpose of confrontation and the trial Court shall fix a schedule for defendants’ evidence thereaftrer and complete the same within two months so that the suit can be heard and disposed of within a month thereafter. Both the parties undertake that they shall adhere to the schedule fixed by the trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments, and cooperate with the trial court for disposal of the suit within the prescribed time.

¶23

The petitioners/defendants shall also deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each in three applications to the credit of the suit towards costs payable to the respondents/plaintiffs within two weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondents/plaintiffs shall be entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.

¶24

These revision petitions are accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

No costs.

¶26

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶27

Dt. 18.10.2012 KR

¶28

NB: CC of order be furnished in two days.

¶29

/BO/

Narayana v. Smt. Pani Bai (died) per L.R.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayana v. Smt. Pani Bai (died) per L.R.S.

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

Moola Sreenivasa Reddy, Vs M.Venkatachalapathi

J.Bikshapathi Vs Rajeev Sharma

Nallagatchu Pandu Ranga Rao Vs Dintakurthi Venkata Ratnam

Smt. Nagam Indira Vs M.R. Vijay Kumar

Tekumalla Purushottamarao, Vs Smt.Tekumalla Padmavthi

I.Arun Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada