Dismissed

M.Panduranga Rao, v. Smt.Chatramma

Telangana HC7 Oct 2014CRP/712/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

COMMON ORDER dismissing two CRPs challenging the trial court's refusal to admit documents under Order 7 Rule 143 CPC and the rejection of a petition to reopen evidence. The trial court found the application belated and irrelevant to the suit property. The High Court found no error warranting Article 227 interference and upheld the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The CRPs were dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

M.Panduranga Rao, Vs Smt.Chatramma — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

C.R.P. Nos.712 & 713 of 2014

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

The CRP No.712 of 2014 is filed against the order dated 04.12.2013 passed in I.A.No.203A of 2011 in O.S.No.12 of 2006 wherein the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 143 of CPC for grant of leave to receive the documents.

¶5

The CRP No.713 of 2014 is filed against the order dated 04.12.2013 passed in I.A.No.203 of 2011 in O.S.No.12 of 2006 wherein the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 143) of CPC to reopen the suit for the evidence of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5.

¶6

The case of the petitioners is that they have filed O.S. No.12 of 2006 along with respondent No.7 for declaring them as owners and possessors of the suit land bearing Sy.Nos.11 and 12 of Kamatpulmamidi Village, Makthal Mandal and to direct the Special Deputy Collector Rajiv Lift Irrigation Scheme Unit-1, Sangambanda Project, Makthal to pay compensation to them for acquisition of their lands in the above said survey numbers.

¶7

The present application is filed for receiving some documents which the petitioners could not file earlier as they were mixed up with some other papers and they clearly show the relationship with the original owner and possessor Late Panduranga Rao Mutalik.

¶8

The respondents/defendants filed counter affidavit stating that previously on 15.04.2009, the same petitioners filed a petition under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w 151 C.P.C. for receiving documents vide IA.No.262/2009 and the same was dismissed and subsequently the revision filed by them was also dismissed. Against the same, the present petition is filed for receiving the documents. It is also stated that on behalf of petitioners/plaintiffs PW1 to PW5 were examined and

¶9

the suit is coming for cross examination of DW1. After completion of their evidence, the plaintiffs have filed the present application. He also contends that the survey numbers of the suit land is 11 and 12 whereas the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the documents with regard to Sy.Nos. 79,89,58,409 which are no way concerned with the suit land. After considering the said aspect, the Court below dismissed the application stating that the same is filed belatedly after examination of PWs.1 to 5 and DW1. The trial Court also observed that plaintiffs Nos.2 to 5 would have cross examined PWs.1 to 5. The trial Court also observed that the documents proposed to be filed relates to Sy Nos.7, 8, 79, 89, 58 157, 384, 385, 397 and 412 whereas the survey numbers to the suit schedule land are 11 and 12. The trial Court also found that petitioner has not explained how the documents are relevant to the suit schedule property.

¶10

After going through the order of the trial Court and pleadings, I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.203 and 203A in O.S.No.12 of 2006 requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. More so, this Court has earlier dismissed the Revision filed by the petitioners in CRP.No.898/2010.

¶11

Accordingly, both CRPs are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶12

_____________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶13

Date: 07.10.2014 dv

M.Panduranga Rao, v. Smt.Chatramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Panduranga Rao, v. Smt.Chatramma

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

M/s. Ls Life Sciences, Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Ganta Ramu S/o Shanker Vs Government of A.P.

G.Adilakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mavillapally Ramu (died) Vs Kummari Balaram

Bal Reddy Vs Smt.Bhagya Laxmi

M.Panduranga Rao, Vs Smt.Chatramma