The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of an application for attachment of property before judgment. The trial court held that third-party affidavits were mere hearsay and inadmissible.
The civil revision petition was dismissed with no 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5743 of 2011
Between:
Vaddi Nageswara Rao, S/o Tatayya, Kalavacharla, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District.
..Petitioner-Plaintiff
And
Gangula Srinivasa Rao, S/o Subba Rao, Kalavacharla, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District.
.. Respondent-2nd defendant
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
C.R.P.No.5743 of 2011
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari District at Ramachandrapuram, dated 20.09.2011 dismissing I.A.No.839 of 2011 in O.S.No.302 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner herein.
Petitioner-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for damages alleging that the respondent-2nd defendant made some defamatory statements against him in the letter dated 21.02.2011 sent to the Joint Collector, East Godavari. Along with the suit, he filed the present I.A.No.839 of 2011 seeking to attach the petition schedule property before judgment. The respondent-2nd defendant contested the said application by filing counter, inter alia, contending that there is no prima facie case on the part of the petitioner-plaintiff that he will get a decree in the suit filed by him. The trial Court, on consideration of the entire material available on record, dismissed the said application by an order dated 20.09.2011 holding that there are no sufficient reasons to order for conditional attachment before judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that third party affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff in support of the I.A. under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C are not
admissible in law and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitionerplaintiff, perused the order under revision and the material available on record.
In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner-plaintiff has stated that the respondent-2nd defendant is having only the petition schedule property and since the respondent-2nd defendant is trying to alienate the said property in favour of third parties, in order to escape from legal action, he sought for attachment of property of the respondent-2nd defendant before judgment.
On the other hand, the respondent-2nd defendant contends that there is no necessity for him to alienate his property in any manner whatsoever during the pendency of the suit and to that effect he has given an undertaking before the trial Court.
A perusal of the third party affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff in support of the application, reveals that the deponents therein came to know that the respondent-2nd defendant is proclaiming in the village that he wants to transfer the landed property in favour of third parties to escape from legal consequences. The trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the said third party affidavits are only hearsay evidence and the same
were not admissible in law. Therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court, which has given cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the application. The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality.
I find no merit in this revision and the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
06.01.2012 Gsn.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether third party affidavits claiming the defendant intends to alienate property are admissible evidence for attachment before judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vaddi Nageswara Rao
Gangula Srinivasa Rao
N. V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
