Allowed

S. Gopi Kishan , Gopi K. Sripathy v. K Indira Devi

Telangana HC27 Nov 2012CRP/2926/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed Civil Revision Petitions against orders that permitted a Will deed, pension papers, and a sale deed to be received in evidence. The appeal court held the lower court passed the order without application of mind and without stating relevancy, setting it aside and remanding the issue.

What did the court decide?

Revocation of orders dated 21.02.2012 allowing receipt of documents; remand to settle admissibility issue.

S. Gopi Kishan , Gopi K. Sripathy Vs K Indira Devi — Partition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2924 OF 2012, 2926 OF 2012 & 2889 OF 2012

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since all these petitions arose out of the same cause of action, the same can be disposed of by this common order:

¶5

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against orders dated 21.02.2012 passed in I.A.Nos.507, 508 of 2011 and 485 of 2011 in O.S.No.45 of 2009 on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the applications filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC to receive documents viz., 1) Will Deed dated 19.8.1996 said to be executed by late Smt Varalaskhmi, the mother of the petitioner/plaintiffs and respondents/defendants No.1 and 2, 2) Pension papers of late Smt Varalaxmi, 3) Xerox copy of sale deed dated 30.11.1990 and reopen the suit to adduce further evidence, were allowed.

¶6

2. Heard.

¶7

3. The respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.45 of 2009 on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties and for such other reliefs against the petitioner/1^st defendant and others. Subsequently, at the stage of final arguments, the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed the applications.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/1^st defendant contended that the Court below passed the impugned orders without application of mind as to receiving of the above said documents and hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶9

5. As seen from the impugned orders passed by the Court below, it is clear that the same were passed without application of mind. The Court below did not state as to how the above mentioned documents were relevant and admissible in evidence for the purpose of deciding the main issues in the suit. Hence, the impugned order needs to be set aside.

¶10

6. Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders dated 21.02.2012 passed in I.A.Nos.507 of 2011, 508 of 2011 and 485 of 2011 in O.S.No.45 of 2009 on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Court below is directed to settle the issue with regard to the relevancy or admissibility of the above said documents in the main suit and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs.

¶11

________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J.

¶12

Date:27.11.2012

¶13

¶14

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶15

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2924 OF 2012, 2926 OF 2012 &

¶16

2889 OF 2012

¶17

Dated 27.11.2012

¶18

S. Gopi Kishan , Gopi K. Sripathy v. K Indira Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Gopi Kishan , Gopi K. Sripathy v. K Indira Devi

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

Mullapudi Subba Rao Vs B. Sivanarayan Reddy

Jetti Vijayalaxmi Vs Sri Budha Prakash

Smt. B. Devasenamba Vs G. Ravi babu

S Gopi Kishan , Gopi K Sripathy Vs K Indira Devi

S. Gopi Kishan , Gopi K. Sripathy Vs K Indira Devi

G.Govind Raj Goud, Vs Sri a. Ramulu