The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition against an order lowering the Court's rejection of the application to reopen evidence. The Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the lower Court's decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.3118 of 2014
Dated 19.09.2014
Between:
N.Shiva Raj Madiga
…Petitioner And
M.Durga Reddy
…Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the respondent: ---
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 18.03.2014, in IA.No.303 of 2014 in OS.No.2592 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the
above-mentioned suit filed for perpetual injunction. By the impugned order, the lower Court has dismissed the IA filed by the petitioner for reopening his evidence for cross-examination. A perusal of Paragraph 5 of the order of the lower Court shows that it has become a habit for the petitioner not to appear before the Court for being subjected to cross-examination and to file repeated applications for reopening his evidence. After giving several opportunities to the petitioner, the lower Court has at long last held ‘thus far and no further’ on yet another application filed by the petitioner for reopening his evidence.
Having carefully considered the reasons assigned by the lower Court, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order under revision warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.4282 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 19th September, 2014
LUR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for reopening evidence warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
N.Shiva Raj Madiga
M.Durga Reddy
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
