Disposed

Raghu Goud v. Ramakrishna Karjee

Telangana HC5 Dec 2014CRP/5089/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the Civil Revision Petition cannot be directly settled by this Court without issuing a fresh application to the lower court. The petitioners are directed to file a new application with details of unrecorded answers, giving the lower court a full opportunity to decide on merits after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file a fresh application with affidavit details for recalling PW1; Trial Court to decide after hearing both parties.

Raghu Goud Vs Ramakrishna Karjee — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5089 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This is a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendants assailing the order dated 03.06.2014 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta, passed in I.A.No.120 of 2014 in O.S.No.63 of 2012, filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall PW1 for further cross-examination.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have perused the material record.

¶6

3. The facts necessary for consideration, in brief, are

¶7

as follows:

¶8

The petitioners/defendants filed a petition to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. Their case as submitted during the course of hearing before this Court and as per the submissions made in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition is as follows: ‘The evidence of PW1 was recorded in open Court by the method of ‘typed to dictation’. The learned counsel for the defendants while cross examining PW1 had put certain questions and had elicited answers. But, the said answers which were dictated by the learned Presiding Officer to the typist, during the course of recording of the evidence, were not typed by the Typist. Afterwards, when a copy of the

¶9

deposition was received, it was noticed by the learned counsel for the defendants that certain answers given by PW1 during cross examination were not typed by the typist, who had typed the deposition of PW1 to the dictation of the learned Presiding Officer. Therefore, it has become necessary to recall PW1 to elicit answers to the same questions, which were not typewritten by the Bench typist though the same were dictated by the Presiding Officer during the cross examination of PW1.’ The said petition was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing a detailed counter.

¶10

4. The trial Court, without even adverting to the contentions in the counter of the plaintiffs had dismissed the petition of the defendants and had refused to recall PW1, while observing that the affidavit filed in support of the petition of the defendants was silent as to what were the answers which were given by the PW1 in the cross-examination and which were not typewritten, and also further observing that the typist of the Court had not typed the answers given by PW1 and dictated by the Court is not a ground to recall PW1.

¶11

5. At the time of hearing of this revision petition, it is fairly conceded that the affidavit is silent in regard to the answers which were given by PW1 and which were not typed by the typist despite the fact that the same were dictated by the Court. It is further stated that the defendants cannot be made to suffer for no fault of theirs and that it is in the interest of justice to recall PW1 in the peculiar facts of the case. It is also submitted

¶12

that the counter filed by the plaintiffs was not taken into consideration by the trial Court and yet the petition is dismissed.

¶13

6. Having regard to the submissions, this Court is of the well considered view that instead of setting aside the order, which is impugned, a fresh opportunity can be given to the defendants to file a fresh application to recall PW1 supported by an affidavit with all necessary details. If such an opportunity is given, such an application can be disposed of afresh and on merits by the trial Court after hearing both the parties.

¶14

7. Viewed thus, this Court finds that this revision can be disposed of with necessary directions.

¶15

8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of giving an opportunity to the petitioners/defendants to file a fresh application, to recall PW1, supported by an affidavit with all the details which are necessary to be stated in support of the request. In case such application comes to be filed, the trial Court shall give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to file a counter and then dispose of the said application on merits after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed.

¶17

JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶18

5^th December, 2014 rkk

Raghu Goud v. Ramakrishna Karjee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghu Goud v. Ramakrishna Karjee

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

G.Eswaramma Vs The State of A.P.

M.a.Saleem Vs The State of Ap.

Medini Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.S.Narayana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.v.Sreenivasa Rao, Vs Annavaram Brahmam

M. Subramuneiah, Vs Smt. B. Krishnaveni