Remanded

Nimmakayala Srinivasulu, v. Singamsetty Pedda Brahmaiah

Telangana HC19 Apr 2012CRP/802/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two civil revision petitions challenging docket orders where the trial court recorded evidence quickly without cross-examination or hearing of arguments. The High Court directed the trial court to decide the suit within six months after affording the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and place arguments.

What did the court decide?

Directing the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months after affording opportunity for cross-examination and submission of arguments, and to decide the issue regarding authorization of a w

Nimmakayala Srinivasulu, Vs Singamsetty Pedda Brahmaiah — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No.802 & 803 OF 2012

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since the parties and the issue involved in both the revision petitions are one and the same, these revisions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

These revisions are filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the docket orders dated 7.2.2012 and 9.2.2012 in O.S.No.84 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole.

¶6

The above suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of contract. On 7.2.2012, the trial Court recorded the proceedings in the above suit as follows:

¶7

“D.Ws. 1 to 4 present and D.W.1 cross-examined in part by Sri KRR and cross-examined by Sri MVKS. Exs.B1 to B34 and Ex.C1 are marked. Chief affidavit of D.W.5 filed. D.W.5 confirmed the contention of Chief Affidavit on oath. D.Ws. 1 to 5 are crossexamined by Sri MVKS Counsel of D1 to D3. During crossexamination D.W.1 by Sri KRR this Court gave order that Exs.B2, Ex.B4 and Ex.B6 are authentic D.W.1 to defendants D2, D4 and D6 in O.S.No.84 of 2009 on that Sri KRR filed memo stating that they are willing to file CRP against that order and in view of the same is not able to proceed with the cross-examination of D.W.1 and other witnesses. Hence, further cross-examination of D.W.1 and crossexamination of D.Ws. 2 to 5 was not done by Sri KRR. For confirmation of chief affidavit filed by D1 and his cross-examination, call on 8.2.2012.”

¶8

Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed CRP No.802 of 2012.

¶9

Subsequently, on 9.2.2012, the trial Court recorded the

¶10

proceedings as follows:

¶11

“No arguments are advanced by both the parties. Hence, it is treated that they have no arguments to submit. For judgment call on 21.2.2012 if stay order not obtained by them. Judgment will be pronounced, the parties are at liberty to file written arguments on 13.2.2012.”

¶12

Challenging the said proceedings, the plaintiff filed CRP No.803 of 2012.

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that the objection raised with regard to authorization of D.W.1 to file the written statement, vakalat and to give evidence in the present suit, was overruled and that D.W.1 is to be cross-examined about his authority, but the trial Court recorded the evidence of D.Ws.2 to 5 in a short spell of time i.e., on 7.2.2012 and 8.2.2012 and closed the evidence and posted the matter for judgment, without affording any opportunity to the petitionerplaintiff for cross-examining the witnesses of the respondents herein, and without hearing the arguments of both sides.

¶15

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the suit, it is just and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity to the petitionerplaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents and to place the arguments. The trial Court is further directed to decide the issue raised by the petitioner-plaintiff with regard to authorization of D.W.1 in the present suit, while giving judgment.

¶16

With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, the order of interim stay in both the revisions stands vacated and the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, are closed.

¶17

____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶18

Dated: 19.4.2012 Nn

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No.802 & 803 OF 2012

¶21

19.4.2012

¶22

Nn.

Nimmakayala Srinivasulu, v. Singamsetty Pedda Brahmaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimmakayala Srinivasulu, v. Singamsetty Pedda Brahmaiah

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

Tappita Sandhya Vs Tappita Kiran Kumar

Smt. Mudigonda Vishali , Vishalakshmi Vs Mudigonda Koteshwara , Koteshwara Sharma

Smt. Enabothula Mamatha , Khandapu Rithika Vs Khandapu Rajesh Naidu

Nimmakayala Srinivasulu, Vs Singamsetty Pedda Brahmaiah

Dr. K.Sabitha Vs Dr. M.Sravan Kumar

Chennaboina Venkulu (Died) his L.R.S Vs Vitikala Narasimha Chary (Died ) His L.Rs