This revision petition against a civil decree permitting plaintiffs to adduce rebuttal evidence on an additional issue of property shares was dismissed as the lower court order followed settled principles of law without any patent error.
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.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.205 of 2013
Dated: 01.02.2013
Between:
Sri Landa Pydithalli and another
… Petitioners
AND
Sri Landa Seethamnaidu and others
... Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.205 of 2013
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2012 whereunder the request of the plaintiffs/the respondents herein to reserve their right to adduce rebuttal evidence if necessary on the additional issue was accepted by the Court below.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the order under revision suffered from any patent error of fact or law warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
As could be seen, O.S.No.268 of 1995 which was filed for perpetual injunction was initially decreed by judgment dated 11.10.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants / revision
petitioners filed A.S.No.282 of 2006 and the appellate Court by judgment dated 30.03.2012 set aside the trial Court’s decree dated 11.10.2006 and remanded the matter for disposal afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead further evidence in respect of the additional issue framed by the appellate Court which reads as under:
“Whether the plaint schedule is joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants? ”
A perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court in Appeal Suit No.282 of 2006 shows that the said additional issue was framed in view of the specific stand taken by the defendants in their appeal that in the suit schedule property they are having 40% share. Therefore, as rightly held by the Court below the burden of proof lies only on the defendants. Hence the Court below was justified in permitting the plaintiffs to adduce rebuttal evidence after the evidence of the defendants on the additional issue.
The order of the Court below being in accordance with the settled principles of law warrants no interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_____________ G.ROHINI, J 01st February, 2013. Ivd/gra
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court's decision to permit plaintiffs to adduce rebuttal evidence on an additional issue regarding property shares suffered from patent error of fact or law warranting revisional inte
Sri Landa Pydithalli
Sri Landa Seethamnaidu
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
