Dismissed

Duvvula Narender v. Kammari Kistaiah

Telangana HC24 Nov 2014CRP/1812/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the High Court disposed of an appeal against an order dismissing an application to summon a Tahasildar. The Court held that proceedings before the Tahasildar constitute public documents and did not require oral examination of the officer in the absence of doubt regarding their authenticity.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Duvvula Narender Vs Kammari Kistaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1812 OF 2013

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.57 of 2012 challenged the Order dated 22.02.2013 in I.A.No. 97 of 2013 in O.S.No.57 of 2012, wherein and whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, dismissed the application filed under Order XVI Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), seeking the relief to summon the Tahasildar of Kamareddy to give evidence and to cause production of revenue records.

¶5

2 ) In support of the petition, revision petitioner–defendant narrated various proceedings, which have ensured before various authorities including the Tahasildhar, Joint Collector and High Court. The application has been resisted by the respondentplaintiff. The learned Judge, on consideration of the fact that recording of evidence on both sides has been closed and further there is no justifiable reason to summon the Tahasildhar, dismissed the I.A.

¶6

3) Heard Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

4) A perusal of the order and the material on record would go to show, primarily the presence of Tahasildhar was sought to give evidence and to speak about various proceedings which have

¶8

taken place before him as well as before other authorities. The fact remains that orders passed by various authorities would fall within the description of public documents as desired under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further the learned Judge had also recorded the fact that most of the documents have already been brought on record by one or other parties. Inasmuch as the purpose of summoning the Tahasildar is only to speak about the veracity of the documents and in the absence of any compelling reasons to doubt and disbelieve the authenticity and the veracity of any particular document, there would be no necessity and need to examine a public servant. Further in the event of any doubt with respect to any particular document it was always open for the parties to make their submissions with respect to their relevancy and admissibility at the time of the evidence. Inasmuch as, no specific objection has been raised in the I.A. with respect to any of such document, the Court below had considered the futility of summoning the Tahasildhar and rightly dismissed the I.A.

¶9

5) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.

¶10

-----------------------------------

¶11

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶12

Dated:24.11.2014. Ssv

Duvvula Narender v. Kammari Kistaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duvvula Narender v. Kammari Kistaiah

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

Sunkari Narsaiah Vs Kuna Anantham

Ch. Lakshmi Sujatha Vs The Osmania University

Smt. Farzana Begum Vs Smt. Raheema Bee

The Depot Manager Vs P.S. Williams

T. Vijaya Nirmala Vs The District Collector

Mr Kulkarni Manohar Rao Vs Mr Kuchi Saibaba