Allowed

Masjid-e-Sayyadana Bilal, v. Mohd. Ameeruddin

Telangana HC6 Dec 2014CRP/3856/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against the dismissal of an application to adduce further evidence in a suit concerning Masjid property. Court set aside dismissal, allowed fresh evidence subject to affidavit filing, costs payment, and strict time limits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to adduce evidence of two witnesses within specified timelines; order setting aside previous dismissal; costs of Rs.2,500 imposed.

Masjid-e-Sayyadana Bilal, Vs Mohd. Ameeruddin — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3856 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 23.07.2014 passed in I.A.No.616 of 2014 in O.S.No.39 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 151 of C.P.C., for re-opening of the case of the petitioner/plaintiff for adducing further evidence, was dismissed on the ground that in spite of giving several opportunities, the petitioner failed to adduce his further evidence.

¶4

The respondents 1,2 and 5 have been served. Notice sent to respondent No.8 is returned with an endorsement “continued seven days door lock, hence returned”, while the notices sent to the respondents 4 and 9 are returned with an endorsement “no such person in this house, so returned.”

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are two more witnesses to be examined on behalf of the petitioner and no counter affidavit was filed by the respondents/defendants opposing the claim of the petitioner. He also submitted that, in fact, the respondents had no objection for allowing the petition, however, the learned Junior Civil Judge had dismissed the I.A and the same is causing great prejudice to the petitioner.

¶6

A copy of the plaint filed in O.S.No.39 of 2011 finds place in the material papers filed along with the revision. A perusal of the same discloses that essentially the suit is filed by one set of people against another set of people and the dispute relates to a Masjid property. Considering the fact that the dispute is relating to a place of prayer and to give a quietus to the litigation once for all, it is desirable to allow the petitioner to adduce whatever evidence he seeks to adduce, as

¶7

otherwise it may result in multiple litigation by some way or the other, and no prejudice as such would be caused if one more opportunity is given to the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall be put on certain conditions.

¶8

In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.616 of 2014 in O.S.No.39 of 2011 is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶9

“The petitioner shall file affidavit in lieu of chief examination of the two witnesses, whom he desires to examine, within two weeks from today and they shall be made available for cross-examination within one week thereafter. The petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) towards costs to the respondents/defendants. Such costs shall be paid through the counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants before the Court below. At any rate, the plaintiff shall complete recording of the evidence on his behalf within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge is at liberty to pass appropriate orders and proceed with the matter without any indulgence being shown in favour of the petitioner.”

¶10

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand disposed of.

¶11

_______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J

¶12

06.12.2014 v v

Masjid-e-Sayyadana Bilal, v. Mohd. Ameeruddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masjid-e-Sayyadana Bilal, v. Mohd. Ameeruddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. N. Prameela Vs The Child Development Project Officer

Smt.Sarala Jain Vs Sangu Gangathar

Duvvada Varalaxmi Vs The Project Director

Ch. Paramjyothi Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Smt. D.Sujatha Vs M.Prabhakar

P.V.A.S.K. Varma Vs The Commissioner