Dismissed

J.Damodar, v. C.ramu Yadav

Telangana HC20 Jan 2012CRP/4653/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed two civil revision petitions challenging the rejection of interlocutory applications to mark certified copies of documents. Finding no jurisdictional error in the lower court's reasoning that original documents were available in a criminal court, the petition was rejected, liberty granted for future applications.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application for summoning original documents and reopening evidence.

J.Damodar, Vs C.ramu Yadav — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Civil Revision Petition Nos.5058 and 4653 of 2011

¶3

Date: 20-01-2012

¶4

Between J.Damodar … Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff and C.Ramu Yadav … Respondent/Respondent/ Defendant

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶6

Civil Revision Petition Nos.5058 and 4653 of 2011

¶7

Common Order:

¶8

These two civil revision petitions arise out of the common order dated 29-8-2011 in I.A.Nos.2613 and 2612 of 2011 in O.S.No.301 of

¶9

2008 on the file of the learned Chief Judge,

¶10

City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

¶11

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule house and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent and persons claiming through him from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property; with a further direction to the respondent not to change the structure in any manner. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2612 of 2011 for recalling P.W.1 for marking certified copy of Will and I.A.No.2613 of 2011 to receive certified copies of two documents, namely, Will and complaint given to the Home Minister against the respondent. Both these applications were dismissed by the Court below on the reasoning that when the original documents, certified copies of which are proposed to be marked, are available in a Criminal Court in connection with a criminal case, nothing prevented the petitioner from filing an appropriate application for summoning of those documents.

¶12

3. In my opinion, the reasoning of the Court below in rejecting the applications does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.

¶13

4. Accordingly, while dismissing the civil revision petitions liberty is however given to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Court below for summoning the original documents and to file fresh application for reopening of the evidence on the petitioner’s side, subject to the result of the application filed by him for summoning the documents. No costs.

¶14

5 . As a sequel to the dismissal of the civil revision petitions, C.R.P.M.P.Nos.7179 and 6612 of 2011 in C.R.P.Nos.5058 and 4653 of 2011, respectively, are also dismissed as infructuous.

¶15

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.

¶16

20^th January, 2012. Ak

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶18

Civil Revision Petition Nos.5058 and 4653 of 2011 (Common Order)

¶19

20^th January, 2012. (Ak)

J.Damodar, v. C.ramu Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Damodar, v. C.ramu Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.A. Jahangir Vs Javeed parvaz

Inampudi Krupa Madhuri Vs Sri Gadde Adinarayana

B.Kishan, Vs Omprakash

M/S Shriram Chits [P] Limited, Vs P.Sridhar

Smt. Smitha Anand, Vs v.Sandesh Reddy

Ch. Srinivas Vs Muraj Ahmed Khan