Partly allowed

Chintapalati Ramakrishna Raju (died v. Chintalapati Viswanadha Raju

Telangana HC29 Nov 2012CRP/5846/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision under Article 227, the High Court observed that a prior order stripping the 5th defendant of the opportunity to examine witnesses did not bar defendants 4 and 6. The Court permitted them to record evidence within two months and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 4 and 6 permitted to adduce further evidence; the matter to be disposed within two months from receipt of this order.

Chintapalati Ramakrishna Raju (died Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

C.R.P.No. 5846 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by docket order dated 16-11-2012 passed in O.S.No.23 of 2012 (O.S.) on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Narasapur, West Godavari District.

¶5

The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the O.S. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the O.S.

¶6

This Court by order dated 09-11-2012 in C.R.P.No.5611 of 2012 (C.R.P.) gave a direction for the examination of the

¶7

5^th defendant in the suit observing that if he would not turn up, his evidence should be forfeited. On 16-11-2012 the

¶8

5^th defendant appeared before the Court below and he was named as DW-10 but as the plaintiff was not present, his cross-examination was closed. The Court below observed that no whisper was made to give further time to adduce further evidence on behalf of the defendants 4 to 6 by reason of which their evidence was closed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the defendants would contend that the order passed by this Court in the said C.R.P. is only pertaining to the examination of 5^th defendant and not pertaining to the examination of other witnesses of himself and the defendants 4 and 6 and their witnesses and accordingly necessary opportunity should be given to examine them. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the

¶11

5^th defendant involved in protracting the matter for long time not submitting himself for examination before the Court and the order passed in the C.R.P. debars the examination of his witnesses and also the examination of the defendants 4 and 6 and their witnesses.

¶12

Pertinently in the order passed by this Court in the C.R.P. only

¶13

the question of examination of the 5^th defendant as witness was considered. The question of giving opportunity to the defendants 4 to 6 to adduce further evidence was not considered in the order passed in the C.R.P. However, the contention of the plaintiff that the opposite parties are indulging in prolonging the litigation is to be considered.

¶14

Taking into consideration the circumstances enumerated above, the defendants 4 and 6 are permitted to adduce further evidence. It is also directed that the Court below shall have to record the evidence of the defendants 4 and 6 or the witnesses of the defendants 4 to 6 on day to day basis or complete their evidence within two months whichever is earlier from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and then to dispose of the matter.

¶15

Subject to the observations made above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶16

As a sequel to the disposal of the C.R.P., miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶17

_________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶18

Date: 29-11-2012 YCR

Chintapalati Ramakrishna Raju (died v. Chintalapati Viswanadha Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintapalati Ramakrishna Raju (died v. Chintalapati Viswanadha Raju

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

The Institutte of Charted Financial Analyst of India Vs Cfa Institute ( formerly Known as Association

Sri Tumati Rajan Babu, Vs Sri Bandaru Vithal Rao

Sri Sri Sri Radhakanthaswamy Temple Vs Maddu Ramamurthy

Samayam Nageswara Rao Vs Nanday Bharathi Devi

Kanchi Muralidhar, Vs K.Usha Rani

Smt.Lakshmamma, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation