Single judge dismissed a revision petition filed by a defendant in a civil suit. The petitioner challenged the trial court's partial acceptance of an application to frame additional issues concerning document admissibility, relying on Supreme Court directions.
Revision petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
C.R.P. NO. 2721 of 2012
Date of Judgment: 11.10.2012
Between:
Verupanda Krishna Murthy
…Petitioner
and
Verupanda Rama Rao (died) and others
..Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
C.R.P. NO. 2721 of 2012
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is the defendant No.3 in OS No. 205 of 1992 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam. The said suit has a chequered history and was remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal as per the judgment in AS No. 182 of 2007 dated 31.7.2010. After the matter was remanded for fresh disposal, the petitioner filed an application for framing of four additional issues. The trial Court had considered the said application and in substance accepted to frame the
additional issues, but with certain modifications. The application of the petitioner was thus partly allowed. Aggrieved to the extent of not framing any additional issue with regard to admissibility of documents in question, this revision petition is filed.
The order of the trial court clearly shows that it was conscious of the directions given by this Court in CRP No. 6405 of 2005 as well as the directions in the first appeal, referred to above and it records that appropriate orders are required to be passed with regard to the documents at the time of final arguments. The trial court also finds that framing of additional issues as sought for by the petitioner can facilitate fresh disposal of the suit by giving a finding with regard to the documents marked subject to objection. I, therefore, see no particular grievance of the petitioner surviving after the impugned order, which, in principle, accepts all the additional issues as proposed by the petitioner. Even otherwise it is for the trial court to frame or amend the issues at the time of disposal of the suit as is permissible under Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
I, therefore, see no reason to entertain the revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
Dt. 11.10.2012
KR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in partially accepting the application for framing additional issues regarding admissibility of documents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Verupanda Krishna Murthy
Verupanda Rama Rao
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
