Allowed

Mohd Ismail v. Mohd Ismail

Telangana HC26 Nov 2014CRP/1784/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed six civil revisions arising from interlocutory orders regarding a rent dispute. Held that the petitioner should be permitted to cross-examine witnesses previously recalled and cross-examined by the erroneous procedure. Ordered setting aside the impugned orders and awarding costs of Rs.3,000 to the petitioner for payment within ten days.

What did the court decide?

The Impugned orders allowed, corresponding I.As allowed; Petitioner entitled to cross-examine R.Ws.1 to 3 subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000 within 10 days.

Mohd Ismail Vs Mohd Ismail — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1784, 1785, 1786, 1832, 1833 & 1835 of 2014

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These six revisions arise out of the interlocutory orders passed by the Court of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.30 of 2008. The parties are common to all the revisions.

¶5

Respondent No.1 is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing No.20-4-1195, Bilal Market, Lad Bazar, Devdi Nusrath Jung, Charminar, Hyderabad. He filed R.C.No.30 of 2008 under Section 9 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 with a prayer to permit him to deposit the rents for the schedule premises from January, 2005 to January, 2008 and future rents at the rate of Rs.1,100/- per month to the credit of the R.C. The petitioner herein figured as defendant No.3. It is pleaded that there are rival claims as to right to receive the rents between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3. The trial of the R.C. is in progress.

¶6

R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, they were not cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, his deposition was recorded. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.95,97 and 99 of 2014 with a prayer to recall each of the witnesses and I.A.Nos.96, 98 and 100 of 2014 to permit him to cross-examine them. It was pleaded that the

¶7

Advocate, who was engaged by him at the initial stage, did not advise him properly and on account of his negligence, R.Ws.1 to 3 were not examined and that he may be given an opportunity to cross-examine them. The applications were opposed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. The learned Rent Controller dismissed all the applications, through separate orders, dated 07.05.2014.

¶8

Heard Sri V.Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Naseeb Afshan, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶9

The contest in the R.C. is as between the respondents, who figured therein i.e. the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in the context of receiving the rents. On his part, the tenant i.e. respondent No.1 sought permission to deposit the rents. Therefore, the necessity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein would be, mostly of the petitioner. Non-examination of R.Ws.1 to 3 was said to be due to the negligence on the part of the Advocate. For the negligence exhibited by the Advocate of the petitioner, the latter cannot be made to suffer loss. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if R.Ws.1 to 3 were re-called and permitted to be cross-examined by awarding costs of Rs.3,000/-.

¶10

Hence, the civil revision petitions are allowed and the orders under revisions are set aside. The corresponding I.As. shall stand allowed and the petitioner shall be entitled to crossexamine R.Ws.1 to 3, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/(Rupees three thousand only), within ten (10) days from today.

¶11

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of.

¶13

_____________________

L.NARASIMHA

REDDY,J

Dt:26.11.2014

Note: Issue cc in two days. kdl

Mohd Ismail v. Mohd Ismail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Ismail v. Mohd Ismail

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

Mrs. Nasreen Jahan, Vs Mrs. Sairabanu

Mohd. Abdul Layeeq Vs Mrs. Nahib Jabeen

Mohd lshrathullal, Vs Surrender singh Bajaj

Syed Samiuddin Vs Syed Ibrahim Hassan Kazmi , Aslam Kazmi

Parsuram Shinde, Vs Smt. Meera Bai

Shaik Kamala Hassan, Vs Smt. Naseema Farheen