Remanded

Master Kappala Ashish v. Karri Srinivasu

Telangana HC14 Aug 2015CRP/1654/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition concerning motor accident compensation, the High Court set aside a lower court order refusing to reopen an inquiry. The Court directed the lower court to reconsider an application to recall a witness for fresh examination based on medical reports showing injuries contrary to prior testimony.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order and remanded the application to the lower court for fresh adjudication.

Master Kappala Ashish Vs Karri Srinivasu — Telangana HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

¶4

Civil Revision Petition No.1654 of 2015

¶5

Between:

¶6

Master Kappala Ashish

¶7

…. Petitioner Vs.

¶8

Karri Srinivasu & Anr.

¶9

…. Respondents

¶10

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 14.08.2015.

¶11

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶13

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may Yes/No be allowed to see the Judgments?

¶14

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reports/Journals

¶15

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No the fair copy of the Judgment?

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶17

Civil Revision Petition No.1654 of 2015

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Despite service of notice, neither respondents 1 and 2 are present nor are they represented by their counsel. An application under Section 151 CPC was filed before the Court below to reopen the matter and recall PW.4 for further examination. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the petitioner stated that, while PW.4 had stated that the petitioner did not suffer serious injuries, Exs.X1 to X5 clearly show that the petitioner sustained a fracture of Medial Malleolus both tibia; he underwent surgery on 09.04.2010; and, as the treatment was not proper, they had got discharged from the Hospital and had availed treatment from Dr.K.Vishnu Prasad, Orthopaedician and Neuro Surgeon, among others. It is their case that the petitioner should be permitted to examine PW.4 further and confront him with Exs.X1 to X5 to show that his earlier deposition, that the petitioner did not suffer any serious injury, was incorrect.

¶20

The Court below, by a cryptic order, recorded that, as PW.4 was examined at length, there were no grounds to reopen the matter at that stage. No finding has been recorded by the Court below regarding the petitioner’s assertion that Exs.X1 to X5 would belie the evidence of PW.4 that the petitioner had not suffered serious injuries. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order of the Court below and remand I.A.No.622 of 2014 in MOP No.383 of 2011 to the Court below for its adjudication afresh. As the claim in the MOP is for payment of compensation for the injuries suffered by him, I consider it appropriate to direct the Court below to decide I.A.No.622 of 2014 in MOP No.383 of 2011 afresh, and in accordance with law, with utmost expedition.

¶21

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.

¶22

(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)

¶23

Date:14.08.2015.

¶24

Master Kappala Ashish v. Karri Srinivasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Kappala Ashish v. Karri Srinivasu

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

Mrs.Nuzhat Zamani, Vs Dr.a.Ashok

J. Ram Mohan Rao Vs Sri Somesh Kumar

Gunisetty Chandramouli Vs Mukkamala Srinivasa Vasudeva Sharma

Master Kappala Ashish Vs Karri Srinivasu

Lanka Sreenu, Vs Pediredla Ramana

Nadakuduru Srinivasan Vs Nadakuduru Atchyuthavalli