Allowed

Palati Shankar v. R. Arjun Kumar

Telangana HC14 Nov 2014CRP/227/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed a Civil Revision Petition questioning the dismissal of an application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC. The court held that documents submitted to authorities were already on record or denied existence was not sustainable, thus directing the lower court to summon them.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Court below to summon the complaint submitted to the District Collector and copy to Superintendent of Police in the suit.

Palati Shankar Vs R. Arjun Kumar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.227 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff questioning the docket order dated 09.12.2013, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, in I.A.No.1017 of 2012 in O.S.No.113 of 2010, wherein and whereby the application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of C.P.C, to summon the documents i.e., Complaint given by Palata Laxmi, 3^rd respondent to the District Collector, Nizambad, copy of which was submitted to Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad on 02.02.2008, along with the register recording, was dismissed.

¶5

Heard Sri Damodar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkata Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he is an adopted son of Palati Abbanna and his wife Smt Palati Balamma who had no male issues; that he is son of Dobbula Venkanna, brother of Palati Balamma. He filed the suit claiming status of adopted son of late Chinna Abbanna. His adoption took place when he was aged about 3 years at the house of Chinna Abbanna in the presence of caste elders and he was brought up by his adopted parents; due to illiteracy and poverty no document of adoption was executed during the life time of Chinna Abbanna. In the year 1984, Smt P. Balamma executed confirmation of adoption document where under she gave half portion of H.No.9-2-132 corresponding to H.No.9-9-43 i.e., suit schedule property to him. The defendants 1 to 3 without any right or interest in the suit schedule property are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and they are trying to dispose

¶7

of infavour of the 4^th defendant. Hence, the suit.

¶8

While things stood thus, when the trial of the suit was commenced, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present application seeking to summon the above said documents to support his case. Respondents filed a counter opposing the said petition and contended that the application was filed with an intention to drag on the proceedings and to harass them.

¶9

The Court below after hearing both parties dismissed the application observing that the petitioner has not pleaded any thing regarding the complaint alleged to have been lodged by the 3^rd respondent and that the petitioner has approached the office of District Collector, Nizamabad, and Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad and that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the complaint alleged to have been filed by the 3^rd respondent and that the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies in obtaining the copy of the complaint.

¶10

The observation of the Court below would reveal that the Court below was under the impression that it was a claim of the petitioner/plaintiff that the concerned authorities had refused to furnish a copy of the said documents, whereas the copy of the said documents were already on record. A copy of the same has already been filed and there was no denial of the existence of the said documents by the respondents/defendants.

¶11

Para No.2 of the counter-affidavit reads as under:

¶12

“That the petitioner filed a petition for calling a complaint alleged to have been filed by the 1^st respondent, but the said alleged documents are not concerned with the present case and does not give any support to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent is an illiterate lady, and she does not know what is written in the documents and as such the said

¶13

complaint is not necessary to be called”.

¶14

The above averments would go to show that there was no categorical denial about the existence of the said documents. To what extent it supports the case of the petitioner/plaintiff or the respondents, is a matter to be decided in the final analysis. In that view of the matter, the refusal of the learned Judge to summon the complaint given by the 3^rd respondent to the Collector with a copy to Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad on 02.02.2008 is not sustainable.

¶15

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed directing the Court below to summon the above said documents in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand disposed off.

¶16

_____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J Date:14.11.2014. Gk

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶18

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.227 OF 2014

¶19

Date: 14.11.2014

Palati Shankar v. R. Arjun Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palati Shankar v. R. Arjun Kumar

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

Vadla Brahmam Vs Zaheerabee

S.Ravi, Vs Sri K.Vijayanad

Parsi Pawan Kumar Vs B.Mutyala Prakash

Nayabu Sai Vamsi, Vs Nayabu Shamaiah (died) Per L.Rs.

Ahmed Abdul Raheem Vs Mohd. Adul Aziz

M/s. Shriram Chits (P) Limited, Branch-Ii Nizamabad, Vs Smt Lalitha Pawar