The High Court dismissed two Civil Revision Petitions challenging orders allowing recall and reopening of a case for further examination of a deponent. The Court held there was no error warranting interference under Article 227.
Both Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CRP.Nos.1531 & 1583 of 2015
Between:
Bukapuram Krishna Reddy,
Kurnool District.
and
Ganthi Nagi Reddy and three others.
… Petitioner/Appellant (s)
… Respondent (s)
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 07.08.2015
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1531 & 1583 OF 2015
COMMON ORDER:
CRP.No.1531 of 2015 is filed against the docket order dated 18.02.2015, passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in IA.No.161 of 2014 in OS.No.20 of 2007, whereby the interlocutory application filed by the respondents herein under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC seeking to recall DW1 for further examination, was allowed.
CRP No.1583 of 2015 is filed against the docket order dated 18.02.2015, passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in IA.No.160 of 2014 in OS.No.20 of 2007, whereby the interlocutory application filed by the respondents herein under Sec.151 CPC seeking to reopen the case for further examination of DW1 was allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once deposition is recorded and signed by the parties, it cannot be corrected. His case is that the Advocate Commissioner has properly recorded the statements made by DW1 as such they require no correction. He relied on the judgment in Rohit Steels
Pvt.Ltd, v. Poddar Projects Limited[1] .
On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial Court by taking into account the statements recorded by the Advocate Commissioner, came to a conclusion that the Advocate Commissioner has not properly recorded the evidence of DW1 and exercised its discretion for reopening the case and reexamining DW1, as such the impugned order do not warrant any interference.
The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to correction in the deposition, whereas, in the present case, the petitioner wants clarification in the statements made by the petitioner as they are not in consonance with the suggestions made by the petitioner’s counsel, as such, the ratio laid down in the above Judgment has no application to the facts of the case on hand.
In view of the same, I do not see any error in the orders passed by the Court below warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, both the CRPs are dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the CRP, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 07.08.2015 tk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the trial court's order allowing recall of a deponent for further examination.
Whether the limitation to correction of deposition in cited precedent applies to petitioner's request for clarification of statements.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rohit Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Poddar Projects Ltd.Referred¶20
2007(1) ALT 152
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bukapuram Krishna Reddy
Ganthi Nagi Reddy
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
