Dismissed

Sri Kadupukotla Devudu v. Smt. Chandaka Jhansi Kumari

Telangana HC1 Feb 2013CRP/349/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition complaining that the lower court erred in refusing to accept an objection to the admissibility of a photostat promissory note. The Court held that since the suit was filed pleading the original was lost, the lower court acted correctly in allowing the claimant to prove loss and did not err in dismissing the objection application.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs.

Sri Kadupukotla Devudu Vs Smt. Chandaka… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.349 of 2013

¶3

Dated: 01.02.2013

¶4

Between:
Kadupukotla Devudu	… Petitioner
AND
Chandaka Jhansi Kumari	... Respondent

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.349 of 2013

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.1463 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The suit is filed by the respondent herein seeking a decree for recovery of money allegedly due from the defendant under a promissory note.

¶8

The defendant/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.429 of 2012 contending that as the plaintiff had filed only a photostat copy of the alleged promissory note which is inadmissible in evidence, the same may not be received as secondary evidence. The Court below by the order under revision dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶9

A perusal of the order under Revision shows that in the plaint

¶10

itself it was pleaded that the original promissory note was lost. An objection was taken by the Court below at the time of numbering the suit and ultimately the suit was numbered accepting the indemnity given by the plaintiff. Thus, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the suit promissory note was lost and therefore the original could not be produced. Moreover, the defendants had earlier filed I.A.No.1469 of 2010 for rejection of plaint on the very same ground that the suit was filed on the basis of a photostat copy. The said I.A. was dismissed and the said order has become final. At any rate, since the suit itself was filed pleading that the original document was lost, the Court below cannot be held to have committed any error in holding that an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to adduce evidence and to establish that the suit document was lost. Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted.

¶11

However, it is made clear that the order under revision shall not preclude the petitioner to raise an objection as to the admissibility of the document in question at the time of marking of the same. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J 01^st February, 2013. Ivd/gra

Sri Kadupukotla Devudu v. Smt. Chandaka Jhansi Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kadupukotla Devudu v. Smt. Chandaka Jhansi Kumari

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

Boyina Satyanarayana, Vs Smt. Sailaja Iyyer

K.J. Chandra Sekhar Vs Sri a. Prasad

K. Bhaskar Vs Sri a. Prasad

Sri Landa Pydithalli, Vs Sri Land Seethamnaidu

Pidugu Kondala Rayudu Vs Sri Gopi Nath

Sri Ramaiah Vs D.Mahesh Chandra