This High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application for summons to witnesses. The court held the appeal was misconceived and dismissed it.
The civil revision petition was dismissed with 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.No.2231 of 2015
Between:
U.Pedda Eranna
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
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reports/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2231 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the docket order dated 02.02.2015, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, in IA.No.591 of 2014 in OS.No.35 of 2010, whereby the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff herein for issuing summons to the witnesses detailed in the petition schedule and produce the documents mentioned in the petition schedule and also give evidence on their behalf.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court dismissed the application only on the ground that the documents which sought to be produced were already marked and they are part of record; and that though the documents are filed they have to be proved by examining the person who has got knowledge about the said documents, and that without keeping the said aspect in the mind the Court below dismissed the application.
On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that these are all official documents and they are already marked, as such there is no question of again summoning the official witnesses for that purpose.
It is to be seen that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and the respondents/defendants have taken a plea that they have purchased the said property from the plaintiff by virtue of agreement of sale which is validated subsequently and basing on the same mutation has been effected. When the documents are filed by the respondents and relying on the same, it is for the respondents to prove the same. It is not known as to why the petitioner has filed the present application. In view of the same, there are no merits in the CRP and the application filed by the petitioner is misconceived.
Accordingly, the CRP is 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
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for summons to witnesses deserves admission.
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for summons without appreciating the need to prove documents filed by respondents.
Whether the civil revision petition is misconceived given the nature of the proceedings.
U. Pedda Eranna and others
Ganthi Nagi Reddy and others
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
