Dismissed

Syed Faheem Khadri v. Smt. Vanam Bharathamma

Telangana HC5 Sept 2014CRP/674/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed civil revisions against the trial court's rejection of applications to verify documents and identity records. It held that the applications were outside the suit's scope and aimed at protracting proceedings, directing the trial court to dispose of the suit within two months.

What did the court decide?

Revisions dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of suit within two months.

Syed Faheem Khadri Vs Smt. Vanam Bharathamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4600 OF 2013 AND 674 OF 2014

¶3

Dated:05-09-2014

¶4

Between: Syed Faheem Khadri

¶5

... PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

Smt. Vanam Bharathamma and three others

¶8

.. RESPONDENTS

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4600 OF 2013 AND 674 OF 2014

¶11

COMMON ORDER:

¶12

The 1^st respondent filed O.S No. 4050 of 2003 in the Court of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶13

The trial of the suit commenced and at a very advanced stage, the petitioner filed two applications viz., I.A Nos. 173 and 174 of 2013. The first application was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer to send the vakalat, plaint and affidavit in I.A Nos. 512 and 513 of 2013 and signatures/thumb impressions on the deposition of PW 3 to an expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad. I.A No. 174 of 2013 was filed with a prayer to direct the Sub-Registrar (Births and Deaths), Circle-7, Hyderabad to produce the record of births and deaths register of 1999 containing the thumb impression of Smt. V. Bharathamma, the 1^st respondent herein. He doubted the very gunuinity of the personality of the 1^st respondent. The trial Court dismissed the applications through common order dated 22-082012. Hence, the revisions.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶15

The basis on which the applications are filed by the petitioner is outside the scope of the suit. Even the stage at which the applications were filed, is objectionable. The relief claimed in the suit is the one for injunction simplicitor. It is for the 1^st respondent to establish her possession over the suit schedule property. The petitioner cannot be permitted to undertake a roving enquiry going to the extent of disputing the very identity of the 1^st respondent. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that another person with the same name and description, as the 1^st respondent, exists. The applications are filed only with a view to protract the proceedings. More than a decade has elapsed since the suit was filed.

¶16

The revisions are accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take up the suit on priority basis and dispose of the same, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶19

05-09-2014 ks

Syed Faheem Khadri v. Smt. Vanam Bharathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Faheem Khadri v. Smt. Vanam Bharathamma

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

Jagdish Chander Dacha, Vs The Vinayaka Residency Welfare Association

Kishan Dev Sharma Vs Kasur Begum

Hareesh Kakarla Vs E.Setha

Hasan Maqdoom (died) Vs Asghar Shareef (died)

Ahmed Mohiuddin, Vs Dr.v.Sampath

Badrinarayan Bohra Vs Dr Chandra Prakash Jain