Dismissed

M/s Indus Ind Bank Ltd.,Chennai v. B.Praveen Chowdary

Telangana HC21 Mar 2014CRP/781/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order recalling a witness to mark an age-determination document in an execution proceeding. The Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's discretionary application of mind.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/s Indus Ind Bank Ltd.,Chennai Vs B.Praveen… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.781 OF 2014

¶4

Dated: 21.03.2014

¶5

Between: M/s. Indus Ind Bank Ltd., Chennai .. Petitioner And B.Praveen Chowdary and another

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶9

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.781 OF 2014

¶10

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶11

The revision petitioner filed E.P.No.74 of 2012 in the Court of the I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole for execution of the award dated 23.1.2012 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 directing the respondents herein to pay the claim amount of Rs.35,04,785/- together with interest and granting other reliefs.

¶12

The 1^st respondent herein filed E.A.No.104 of 2013 under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to recall R.W.1 for the purpose of marking the attested copy of the X-class marks list stating that determination of the age of the judgment-debtor No.1/respondent No.1 herein is essential for adjudication of the E.P.

¶13

Though the revision petitioner contested, the Court below allowed the said application by order dated 11.2.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under Revision. The discretion exercised by the Court below in recalling RW.1 on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held to be illegal or perverse on any ground whatsoever.

¶15

However, it is made clear that the petitioner herein is at liberty to raise its objection at appropriate stage as to the admissibility of the

¶16

document proposed to be marked.

¶17

The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

¶18

Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶19

______________ G.ROHINI, J

¶20

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 21.03.2014 Ivd

M/s Indus Ind Bank Ltd.,Chennai v. B.Praveen Chowdary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Indus Ind Bank Ltd.,Chennai v. B.Praveen Chowdary

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.Padama Reddy Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Tadi Venkata Padmavathi Vs Vatti Vasanth Kumar

Tammineni Naramma Vs B.N.R.Constructions

Narregudem Ramulu Vs Talari Narsimha

T.Rani Bai Vs Smt. Tati Sakku Bai

Kanneganti Rama Krishna Vs Smt.M.Neelima Reddy