Allowed

Beeda Ravi Chandra v. Muthyala Bala Rami Reddy

Telangana HC25 Apr 2013CRP/401/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed civil revision petitions, setting aside trial Court orders that dismissed applications to reopen a suit and recall a witness. The Court granted the petitioner one opportunity to examine himself as D.W.1 to prevent prejudice, subject to depositing costs and cooperating promptly.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned orders; granted one opportunity to petitioner to appear as D.W.1 subject to depositing Rs. 5,000 costs and appearing on a fixed date.

Beeda Ravi Chandra Vs Muthyala Bala Rami Reddy — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.391 and 401 of 2013

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Beeda Ravi Chandra.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Muthyala Bala Rami Reddy and another.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A. CHANDRAIAH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. Y.L. SIVA KALPANA REDDY

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

COMMON ORDER:

¶15

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶16

2. Petitioner, who is defendant in O.S.No.318 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, is aggrieved by the dismissal of his applications to reopen the suit and to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of crossexamination. Though the relief is couched in the language, as above, the request of the petitioner himself is to permit the defendant to lead evidence, as his right to lead evidence was forfeited on account of default committed by him in complying with the orders of the District Court in CMA.No.32 of

¶17

2010, which had conditionally granted opportunity to the petitioner.

¶18

3. Petitioner filed applications under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as under Section 151 CPC, both of which were dismissed under separate impugned orders of the trial Court dated 29.11.2012, the same are subject matter of challenge in these revision petitions.

¶19

4. The affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of these applications shows that he was aware of the orders passed by the District Court in CMA.No.32 of 2012 and the conditions imposed thereunder. He stated that he could not attend the Court on the date fixed to comply with the conditions imposed, as he was held up at Hyderabad for political reasons. The said affidavit, apparently, being bald and without disclosing any sufficient cause, the Court below had dismissed the applications.

¶20

5. It is, however, to be noted that the petitioner/defendant had no opportunity to lead evidence and on account of default committed by him, he is now shut out from leading evidence in the suit, which may cause prejudice to the petitioner. When these revision petitions were entertained by this Court on 22.02.2013, while issuing notice before admission, interim stay of all further proceedings was granted for a period of one month.

¶21

6. Both the learned counsel submits that the suit stands at the same stage without any progress.

¶22

7. Since the said suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff in 2008 and since it is already part-heard and it’s disposal is held up on account of the pendency of these revision petitions and keeping in view the request of the petitioner for leave to examine himself as D.W.1, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders in the interest of justice and grant one opportunity to the petitioner to enable him to appear before the Court below and proceed with his evidence, as D.W.1, subject to the following conditions:

¶23

1. Petitioner shall either deposit or directly pay to the learned counsel for the respondent herein costs of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) on or before 30.04.2013.

¶24

2. On receipt of this order, the Court below shall fix a suitable date for trial in the week commencing from 17.06.2013 and on that date, the petitioner shall appear before the Court below and cooperate with the disposal of the suit without seeking any adjournment.

¶25

The civil revision petitions are allowed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶27

April 25, 2013 DSK

Beeda Ravi Chandra v. Muthyala Bala Rami Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beeda Ravi Chandra v. Muthyala Bala Rami Reddy

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

Chintam Koteswara Rao Vs Grandi Venkata Ratna Mahalakshmi

T.Raju, Vs Mr. Balakrishna

Kedamal Vs The Joint Collector

Beeda Ravi Chandra Vs Muthyala Bala Rami Reddy

Musunuru Krishnaiah Vs Burla Prasad Reddy

Poondla Venku Reddy, Vs Vakati Ravindra Reddy