Allowed

Yaragangu Rakminamma v. Javuka Charala Narasimhulu

Telangana HC10 Jun 2013CRP/6253/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The High Court held that since the suit was remanded for fresh disposal, the petitioner must be permitted to lead evidence conforming to an amended plaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the affidavit shall be received and the trial shall proceed.

Yaragangu Rakminamma Vs Javuka Charala… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6253 of 2012

¶3

Dt:- 10.06.2013

¶4

Between:- Yaragangu Rukminamma

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

and

¶7

Javuka Charala Narasimhulu and another

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following:-

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶11

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6253 of 2012

¶12

ORDER: -

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent though served, nobody appears.

¶14

Petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was earlier dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal viz., A.S.No.18 of 1999. In the said appeal petitioner filed an application viz., I.A.No.22 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and I.A.No.15 of 2000 bringing to the notice of the appellate court that pending the suit rectification deed, dated 14.02.2000, is executed in faovur of the petitioner/plaintiff by its vendors. Thereby, the boundaries and the suit schedule properties are correctly described in the said rectification deed. The said applications were allowed by the lower appellate court and later the suit was remanded by setting aside the judgment of the trial court for fresh disposal after framing necessary issues and after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence afresh. Petitioner has thereafter filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination, which has further been rejected by the trial court

¶15

under the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner, who has already lead evidence, cannot lead fresh evidence from the beginning. Thereby, the affidavit filed by the petitioner in lieu of chief examination was ordered to be returned to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is preferred.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaint itself is amended in view of the rectification deed subsequently executed and evidence is proposed to be lead by the petitioner in conformity with the said rectification deed and the amended relief. Reliance is also placed on para 10 of the appellate court’s judgment, which is as follows:

¶17

“Under these circumstances, a fresh issue has to be framed and opportunity should be given to both the parties to adduce evidence on the point after the amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.70 of 1992. It is, therefore, I am of the opinion that the matter has to be remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal after framing necessary issues and after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence afresh.”

¶18

Evidently, the lower appellate court has remanded the suit for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides to lead evidence afresh. Since this plaint is amended in conformity with the rectification deed, necessarily petitioner/plaintiff has to lead evidence according to the amended plaint. The direction of the appellate court permitting him to lead evidence afresh, therefore, has to be given effect to and the trial court was not right in disallowing the plaintiff from leading evidence in pursuance of the directions in the lower appellate court.

¶19

Impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The affidavit filed by the petitioner in lieu of chief examination shall be received by the trial court and shall proceed with the trial of the suit. It is open for the respondents to raise their objections and cross-examine the petitioner/plaintiff in accordance with law and also lead evidence on their behalf as per directions of the lower appellate court. Hence, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by permitting the petitioner to lead evidence

¶20

afresh, which is in conformity with the directions of the lower appellate court.

¶21

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

_____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶23

10.06.2013 lmv

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶25

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6253 of 2013

¶26

10.06.2013

¶27

lmv

Yaragangu Rakminamma v. Javuka Charala Narasimhulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yaragangu Rakminamma v. Javuka Charala Narasimhulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Venkateswarlu Vs The Commandant

M.v.Ujjwala Rani, Vs Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati

Syed Mohammad Nasarullah Basha Khadri Cu Vs Sued Sha Md.Kamlullah Basha Kahdri .

K.Anjaneyulu S/o K.Ramulu Vs Sri Prakash Misra

B.Vasanthi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Joga Appa Rao, Vs The District Co-operative Central Bank