Civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to issue summons to witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC in an ongoing injunction suit. The High Court found no justifiable reason to interfere and dismissed the petition.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.
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.667 of 2013
DATE: 07.03.2013
Between:
Velaga Nallabbai and 2 others …Petitioners And Karri Nagarajamma and another.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.667 of 2013
O R D E R:
The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.127 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. The respondents herein filed the said suit seeking a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property. While the suit was coming up for further evidence of the defendants, they filed I.A.No.1087 of 2012 under Order 16 Rule 1 of C.P.C. with a prayer to issue summons to two witnesses named therein for the purpose of giving evidence about the possession of the plaint schedule property. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 4.1.2013 and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision.
Admittedly, the main suit is filed for bare injunction and therefore it is for the plaintiffs/respondents herein to establish their case. Moreover, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants it was specifically pleaded that one of the persons to whom the revision petitioners wanted to summon to give evidence was no more.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below cannot be held to have committed any error in dismissing the application.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
No costs. __________________ G. Rohini,J Date:07.03.2013 KLP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order dismissing the application to issue summons for witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC was erroneous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Velaga Nallabbai and 2 others
Karri Nagarajamma and another
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
