Allowed

Mohammed Abdul Ali v. Ishaq Hussain Khan

Telangana HC10 Oct 2014CRP/2309/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revisional order, the court restored the petitioner's right to cross-examine a witness (PW.1) whose right was previously forfeited by the trial court following a transfer of the suit. The High Court set aside the dismissal of the application to reopen evidence.

What did the court decide?

The order under revision is set aside; I.A. No.357 of 2014 is allowed; evidence of PW.1 is reopened for cross-examination; suit to be disposed as early as possible.

Mohammed Abdul Ali Vs Ishaq Hussain Khan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

C.R.P.No.2309 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The respondent filed O.S.No.76 of 2010 for recovery of certain amount towards damages. The petitioner, on the other hand, is said to have filed a counter-claim for the relief of specific performance of an agreement. For a substantial period, the suit was pending in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The trial of the suit commenced and PW.1 filed an affidavit in lieu of chiefexamination. The suit later on transferred to the Court of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said Court forfeited the right of the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1, through its order, dated 26.02.2014.

¶5

The petitioner filed I.A.No.357 of 2014 under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to reopen the evidence of PW.1 and to enable him to cross-examine. The application was dismissed on 01.05.2014. Hence, this revision.

¶6

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

¶7

The petitioner states that the affidavit in lieu of chief examination itself was filed after considerable number of adjournments and the failure to cross-examine PW.1 was on account of the transfer of the suit from one Court to another. This, however, is controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent. Even if what is pleaded by the petitioner is not true, he deserves to be given an opportunity, particularly when adjudication on several disputed questions of fact, is involved.

¶8

The C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. As a result, I.A.No.357 of 2014 shall stand allowed and the evidence of PW.1 is reopened to enable the petitioner herein to cross-examine on the next date of hearing. The trial Court shall endeavour to take up the

¶9

suit on priority basis and dispose it of as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this C.R.P. shall also stand disposed of.

¶11

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶12

Dated:10.10.2014

¶13

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶15

C.R.P.No.2309 of 2014

¶16

Date:10.10.2014

¶17

Mohammed Abdul Ali v. Ishaq Hussain Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Abdul Ali v. Ishaq Hussain Khan

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

B Venkateshwar Rao Vs B Seshagiri Rao

Mohammed Nazir Ali, Vs Chaudary Abdul Rahman

Syed Safdar Hussain Vs Sangam Laxmi Bai

Saleh Sayeed Jabri Vs Gulzarilal Kedia

Syed Samiuddin Vs Syed Ibrahim HassanoKazmi ,Aslam Kazmi

Swagat (a unit of M/s. Bajrang Textiles Pvt.Ltd.,) Vs Hotel Parklane Pvt. Ltd., a Company duly incorporated