Allowed

A.Satish Kumar Goud v. a.Anand Rao

Telangana HC14 Mar 2013CRP/1062/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition to set aside the trial court's order closing cross-examination of PW.1. Granting a further opportunity for cross-examination despite prior dismissal for non-appearance, the Court ordered the case reopened considering denied receipt exhibits and fixed a timeline.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.02.2013 is set aside; the case is reopened for defendants to cross-examine PW.1 within two weeks.

A.Satish Kumar Goud Vs a.Anand Rao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶2

C.R.P. No.1062 of 2013

¶3

Date: 14.03.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

A. Satish Kumar Goud and 2 others … Petitioners/ Petitioners AND A. Anand Rao and another … Respondents

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶7

C.R.P. No.1062 of 2013

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, as Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the plaintiff-first respondent herein also appeared before this Court and advanced his submissions.

¶10

2. The defendants 2 to 4 seek for permission to cross-examine PW.1 by setting aside the order in I.A.No.1116 of 2012 in O.S.No.115 of 2011, dated 25.02.2013 passed by the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Jduge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶11

3. The defendants claim that they could not crossexamine PW.1. They filed a petition under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking the trial Court to reopen the case to enable defendants 2 to 4 to cross-examine PW.1. The trial Court dismissed the same on the ground that there was no justification to the defendants in seeking for reopening of the case to cross-examine PW.1.

¶12

4. The plaintiff laid the suit for a declaration regarding the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for setting aside of the sale deed executed by the execution Court in favour of the second defendant as well as the sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of defendants 3 and 4. Defendants 3 and 4 earlier approached this Court in C.M.A.No.445 of 2012 assailing the order of the trial Court dated 07.03.2012 in I.A.No.1014 of 2011 in O.S.No.115 of 2011.

¶13

5. A Division Bench of this Court while dismissing C.M.A.No.445 of 2012, through orders dated 17.07.2012, directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within six months. The learned trial Judge referred to the order of the Division Bench in the impugned order. It would appear to have weighed in his mind that the time granted by the Division Bench had already elapsed and that it would be imperative for the trial Court to dispose of the

¶14

suit most expeditiously. In this background, when the case came up before the trial Court on 17.10.2012, the learned counsel for the defendants 2 to 4 did not appear before the trial Court. A junior counsel filed a Memo before the trial Court seeking for adjournment.

¶15

The learned trial Judge dismissed the same and closed the cross-examination of PW.1. The case was posted to 29.10.2012 for further evidence of the plaintiff. The case was once again adjourned to 06.11.2012 on which date the counsel reported no further evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the first defendant examined himself as DW.1 while defendants 2 to 4 examined the second defendant as DW.2. On 10.12.2012, I.A.No.1116 of 2012 was filed seeking to recall PW.1.

¶16

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-first respondent herein pointed out that nearly two months elapsed from the date on which the evidence of PW.1 stood closed till the date of filing of I.A.No.1116 of 2012 on 10.12.2012 and that there is no justification in allowing the petition and the revision.

¶17

7. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the defendants 2 to 4 did not appear before the trial Court on 17.10.2012. The question of cross-examining PW.1, therefore, did not arise where the trial Court closed the evidence of PW.1 on 17.12.2012. I am afraid that in view of the serious contest between the parties, it would be just

¶18

and reasonable to accord yet another opportunity to the defendants 2 to 4 to cross-examine PW.1 and put forth their case. This is all the more so, where the plaintiff exhibited Exs.A.9 to A.11 which are said to be receipts passed by the second defendant according to the first defendant and the second defendant denied the same.

¶19

8. I consider that a reasonable opportunity deserves to be granted to defendants 2 to 4 to question PW.1 regarding Exs.A.9 to A.11 and to cross-examine him on other aspects, since defendants 2 to 4 did not crossexamine PW.1 at all.

¶20

9. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The orders dated 25.02.2013 in I.A.No.1116 of 2012 are set aside. The case is reopened to enable defendants 2 to 4 to cross-examine PW.1. The trial Court shall fix a date for cross-examination of PW.1 by the defendants 2 to 4 or their counsel, preferably in consultation with the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendants 2 to 4 preferably fixing the date falling within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The plaintiff shall make himself available for cross-examination by the defendants 2 to 4. If the defendants 2 to 4 or their counsel is not ready to crossexamine PW.1, if PW.1 is ready for cross-examination in terms of the present direction, the learned trial Judge shall

¶21

be at liberty to dispose of the matter in an appropriate manner as he thinks just and proper. There shall be no order as to costs in this revision.

¶22

_________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 14.03.2013 Isn

A.Satish Kumar Goud v. a.Anand Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Satish Kumar Goud v. a.Anand Rao

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

M.Karunaker Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Banothu Siada, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vinnakota Venkata Ram Sarma Vs Vinnakota Venkata Rama Jogi Sarma

A. Satish Kumar Goud, Vs a. Anand Rao

B.Sathyanarayana Chetty Vs Srinivasamahal Tirupathiand 14 Others

Maddipoti Venkata Satya Ramu , M.v.S.Ramu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh