Dismissed

Smt P.Padmavathi , Sampurna Laxmi v. P.Kishore

Telangana HC15 Mar 2013CRP/1168/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two civil revision petitions challenging orders of the Family Court, Secunderabad. The trial court had appointed an advocate commissioner to record cross-examination of two expert witnesses based in Warangal. The petitioner objected citing an accident, but the objection was rejected. This Court found the lower court's exercise of discretion reasonable and dismissed both

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1168 & 1174 of 2013 dismissed.

Smt P.Padmavathi , Sampurna Laxmi Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1168 & 1174 of 2013

¶3

DATE: 15.03.2013

¶4

Between: Smt. P.Padmavathi …Petitioner And P.Kishore …Respondent

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1168 & 1174 of 2013

¶7

COMMON ORDER:

¶8

The petitioner in these two revision petitions is the respondent in O.P.No.281 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad. The said O.P. was filed by the respondent herein for divorce. During the trial, the respondent herein examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and thereafter, he sought to examine the P.Ws.5 and 6 who are the Heads of the Department of Medicine at Warangal. Accordingly, the chief-affidavits of the P.Ws.5 and 6 were filed and thereafter he filed I.A.No.742 of 2012 for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to record the cross-examination of P.Ws.5 and 6 at Warangal. The said application was opposed by the revision petitioner stating that she met with an accident and was advised to take bed rest and therefore she was unable to travel to Warangal. The objection raised by the revision petitioner was not accepted by the Court below and accordingly by order dated 10.12.2012, I.A.No.742 of 2012 was allowed and an Advocate of Secunderabad Court was appointed to record the crossexamination of P.Ws.5 and 6 on 15.12.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.1168 of 2013.

¶9

Subsequently, the respondent herein filed another application being I.A.No.87 of 2013 to reopen the petition and entrust the warrant to the Commissioner stating that the warrant issued earlier could not be executed as the revision petitioner/respondent therein was not cooperating. The said application was allowed by order dated 05.03.2013. As against the said order, CRP.No.1174 of 2013 has

¶10

been filed.

¶11

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶12

It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below ought not to have allowed crossexamination of P.Ws.5 and 6 at Warangal without taking into consideration the objections raised by the respondent/revision petitioner.

¶13

I do not find any substance in the said contention.

¶14

As rightly observed by the Court below, the Civil Procedure Code has been amended so as to encourage the examination of the witnesses by Commissioner and to save the valuable time of the Courts. At any rate, this is a case where P.Ws.5 and 6 are the Heads of Department of the Medicine and they are right now employed at Warangal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below thought it fit to permit their cross-examination by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The said discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be held to be perverse or illegal on any ground whatsoever. Therefore, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶15

__________________ G. Rohini,J

¶16

Date:15.03.2013 KLP

Smt P.Padmavathi , Sampurna Laxmi v. P.Kishore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt P.Padmavathi , Sampurna Laxmi v. P.Kishore

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

Sri Bade Narasingarao, Vs Smt.Koppisetti Anitha

M/s.Premeier Enterprises Vs Ponnada Deva Prakash

M/s.Premeier Enterprises Vs Ponnada Deva Prakash

Thotakura Vishnu Murthy, Vs Mallavolu Jawaharlal

Goga Naga Bhaskara Anjaneyulu Vs Goga Venkata Dhanalakshmi

Sudhir Madisetty, Vs v.Suresh