Dismissed

Orusu Gangadhara Rao v. Chitturi Venkateswara Swami

Telangana HC27 Sept 2012CRP/2763/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Commissioner dismissed a civil revision petition. The petitioner could not challenge an order rejecting a request for document comparison because crucial evidence was produced only later, before this Court, not during the hearing before the trial court. The revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach trial court by making fresh application with the registered sale deed.

Orusu Gangadhara Rao Vs Chitturi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2763 OF 2012

¶3

Dt:- 27.09.2012

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Orusu Gangadhara Rao

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

Chitturi Venkateswara Swami

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

This Court made the following:-

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2763 OF 2012

¶13

ORDER: -

¶14

The application of the petitioner/defendant under I.A.No.420 of 2012 was rejected by the court below by order, dated 03.04.2012 on the ground that the documents filed by the petitioner/defendant are not admitted by the plaintiff and hence comparison of disputed document cannot be made.

¶15

Petitioner thereafter has questioned the said order in this revision and pending this revision petitioner now seeks to produce a registered sale deed, dated 24.05.2007, through an affidavit filed in support of C.R.P.M.P.No.5916 of 2012. Para 3 of the affidavit says that this document was not available with the petitioner earlier and the said document contains admitted signature. If that be so, this document must be produced before the trial court to enable the trial court to consider petitioner’s request for comparison of disputed and admitted documents by an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Since the said document now produced was not produced before the trial court when

¶16

the impugned order was passed, on the basis of the document subsequently produced, the order impugned cannot be interfered with.

¶17

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, petitioner shall have liberty to approach the trial court by making fresh application by producing the document, which is produced here as above. If such an application is made, the trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶19

27.09.2012 lmv

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶21

CIVIL REIVISON PETITION No.2763 OF 2012

¶22

27.09.2012

¶23

lmv

Orusu Gangadhara Rao v. Chitturi Venkateswara Swami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Orusu Gangadhara Rao v. Chitturi Venkateswara Swami

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

Smt.Sakeena Bee Vs Venkat Swamy

K.Vijay Kumar, Vs K.Nagabhushanamma

M.Dinesh Vs Ramgopal Kedia

Karpurapu Kamala Vs Yandrapragada Audinarayana Gupta

Smt.Mahmooda Begum, Vs Kasireddy Pandu Ranga Reddy

Smt.Mahmooda Begum Vs Kassireddy Pandu Ranga Reddy