Dismissed

T. Subhash Goud v. H. Kashi Reddy

Telangana HC10 Oct 2014CRP/6015/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order directing the production of documents. The Court held that since the petitioner had previously admitted the existence of the documents in a written statement, the lower court correctly ordered their production despite denial in a counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

T. Subhash Goud Vs H. Kashi Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6015 OF 2012

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 27.06.2012 in I.A.No. 617 of 2011 in O.S.No.21 of 2009, passed by the IX Additional District Judge, at Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.

¶4

2) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-1^st respondent contends that the Court below ought not to have directed the production of Memorandum of Understanding, dated 08.03.2007 and Partnership Deed, dated 25.02.1986 pertaining to M/s Sangam Talkies a t Medak. The Court below has gravely erred in not taking into consideration of the averments made in the Counter affidavit, wherein the petitioner has specifically denied the said documents, and as such the order of the Court below is erroneous in directing the production of the said documents, as the existence of which have been denied specifically in the counter affidavit.

¶5

3) On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3-petitioners submit that the Revision Petitioner herein filed a written statement on 15.04.2010, had specially admitted at para Nos.2 and 9 about the existence of Partnership Deed and the Memorandum of Understanding, and as such the averment in the counter affidavit is liable to be ignored and the Court below having taken into consideration and having perused the specific averment in the written statement had directed the documents to be produced.

¶6

4) Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 had placed on record a copy of the written statement filed by the 1^st defendant, who is Revision Petitioner herein.

¶7

5) Having heard both the learned counsel and having perused the

¶8

copy of the Written Statement, I find that there is a specific mention of Partnership Deed as well as the Memorandum of Understanding. In those circumstances, the Court below had rightly directed the respondent No.1 to produce the said documents and if the parties do not comply with the same, the said documents could be taken for the purpose of the controversy in issue. However, it is made clear that the documents may be received in the evidence subject to proof and relevancy.

¶9

6) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶10

------------------------------------

¶11

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶12

Dated:10.10.2014. Ssv

T. Subhash Goud v. H. Kashi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Subhash Goud v. H. Kashi Reddy

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

Jarpala Gopya , Gopi Vs Smt Usha Rani

Smt.Badavath Aruna Vs Dr.K.Ashok

Shaik Chan Basha, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Dr. Sanjeev Singh Yadav, Vs Smt. Suryakala

The Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Boya Sanjanna, S/o. Boya Chinna Hanumanna, Vs The District Collector, Kurnool.