Partly allowed

A.Venkatesh v. K.Praneetha

Telangana HC19 Sept 2014CRP/2025/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges a trial court order allowing late filing of documents. The appellate court allowed only the approved layout plan to clarify the controversy area, dismissing requests to file a prior judgment decree and a municipal notice due to non-compliance with procedural requirements for condoning delay.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was partly allowed by restricting the trial court's order to include only the approved layout plan.

A.Venkatesh Vs K.Praneetha — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2025 of 2014

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The 1^st respondent filed O.S.No.2458 of 2012 in the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced and the recording of evidence on behalf of the 1^st respondent was completed. The recording of evidence on behalf of the petitioner is in progress. At that stage, the 1^st respondent filed I.A.No.29 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to condone the delay in filing three documents viz., a demand notice dated 28.02.2012 issued by the Municipal Corporation, the approved plan of lay out and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2845 of 2005 on the file of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the same through order, dated 28.02.2014 subject to proof, relevance and admissibility. The said order is challenged in this revision.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5

The C.P.C. no doubt created a facility for filing of the documents at a belated stage also. However, the party, which intends to file the documents at a belated stage, must state the reasons to the satisfaction of the Court. The 1^st respondent did not even state that atleast two documents viz., the layout and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2845 of 2005, were not in her possession. The receipt is said to have been issued to her subsequent to

¶6

the filing of the suit. Once the recording of evidence on the part of the 1^st respondent was concluded, she cannot be permitted to file documents indiscriminately at a belated stage. This Court is of the view that only approved layout plan can be taken on record, so that it would be of some help in understanding the area of controversy.

¶7

Therefore, the civil revision petition is partly allowed, restricting the order passed by the trial Court only to the lay out and dismissing the I.A. as regards others two documents.

¶8

The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶10

Date: 19.09.2014 JSU

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶12

C.R.P.No.2025 of 2014

¶13

Date: 19.09.2014

¶14

JSU

A.Venkatesh v. K.Praneetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Venkatesh v. K.Praneetha

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

Smt.B.Lakshmi Suseela, Vs D.Sudarshanam

Manoj Jain Vs Vamsi Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Syed Sultan Mohiuddin Quadri Vs Syed Mohd. Imam Quadri

K. Naga Rani, Vs Smt. K. Sunitha

Smt. Saloni Devi Jaiswal Vs Smt. B. Rukkamma

M Amarnath Vs M Ravinder