Dismissed

Palutla Nagamanemma v. v.Ramesh

Telangana HC11 Jul 2014CRP/411/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reopen evidence. The petitioner sought to examine a doctor regarding her mental fitness, claiming necessity arose after the plaintiff challenged her fitness. The Court held the application lacked justification as the witness could have been examined earlier and that procedural deletion prejudiced the

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; interim order vacated; separate CRP files dismissed as infructuous.

Palutla Nagamanemma Vs v.Ramesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.411 of 2014

¶2

Date:11.07.2014

¶3

Between: Palutla Nagamanemma, W/o Sri Visvanatham

¶4

……Petitioner

¶5

And:

¶6

V.Ramesh, S/o Late Balaswamy and two others.

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Raja Sripathi Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri J.Suresh Babu

¶9

For Sri K.Mahipathi Rao

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.411 of 2014 ORDER:

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 11.09.2013, in I.A.No.294 of 2013 in O.S.No.2398 of 2006 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

Respondent No.1 filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner is defendant No.2 in the said suit. Defendant No.1, who is the purchaser from the petitioner, has given evidence as

¶15

D.W-1 and his evidence was completed on 31.10.2012. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the defendants on 26.11.2012. Thereafter, defendant No.1 filed I.A.Nos.1991 and 1992 of 2013 for reopening the evidence and for recalling P.W-1 for further crossexamination. Both the said applications were dismissed by the lower Court by order, dated 21.01.2013, which was confirmed by this Court by order, dated 28.02.2013, in CRP.Nos.611 and 612 of 2013.

¶16

On behalf of the petitioner, her son examined himself as D.W-2. After the closure of the evidence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.294 of 2013 on 06.03.2013 for reopening the evidence for examining one Dr. K.Bala Krishna to speak on her mental unfitness. The said application was initially allowed by the lower Court by order, dated 15.03.2013. However, the said order was set aside by this Court by order, dated 28.03.2013, in CRP.No.1384 of 2013 on the ground that the same was not supported by any reasons and the case was remanded for fresh disposal. After remand, the lower Court has dismissed I.A.No.294 of 2013 by the order under revision. In the said order, the lower Court has observed that the petitioner has failed to give reasons as to why she has not examined Dr. K.Bala Krishna previously, as required under Order XVIII Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶17

Sri P.Raja Sripathi Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the said provision was deleted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002.

¶18

In my opinion, deletion of the said provision, if at all, would work to the disadvantage of the petitioner as, the Parliament has, obviously, felt that a litigant shall not be allowed to misuse the said provision by seeking reopening of the evidence after it was closed. Even

¶19

though the Courts have inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such a power has to be exercised to advance justice.

¶20

In the instant case, the only reason given by the petitioner in the affidavit, filed in support of the application, is that as the plaintiff has questioned the claim of defendant No.2 that she was not mentally fit, the necessity of examining the doctor to speak to her mental condition has arisen. If that be so, nothing prevented the petitioner from examining the doctor before the evidence was closed. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that Dr. K.Bala Krishana was not available before the evidence was closed. Having allowed the evidence to be closed and the suit posted for arguments, the petitioner cannot seek reopening of the evidence without properly explaining the reason for not examining the proposed witness before the evidence was closed.

¶21

For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality or error in the order of the lower Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

¶22

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, interim order, dated 13.02.2014, is vacated and CRPMP.Nos.541 and 2835 of 2014 shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

¶24

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶25

11^th July, 2014 DR

Palutla Nagamanemma v. v.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palutla Nagamanemma v. v.Ramesh

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

K.V.R. Kameswar Rao Vs K Vasumathi Devi

Karnati Rama Devi Vs Silveru Satyanarayana

Mohd. Saifuddin Farooq, Vs Sri. Mohd. Fazl Ur Rahman

Smt.K. Seshikala, Vs C.Kanaka Reddy (died per L.rs)

Harikishan Agarwal, Vs G.Krishna Reddy

Smt. Tulipala Prasanna Lakshmi Vs Sri Maruthi Rao