The court dismissed two civil revision petitions filed by a tenant challenging the dismissal of interim applications seeking to recall a witness and admit belated electricity documents. The holding was that no reason for the delay was assigned.
The civil revision petitions were dismissed. No costs awarded. Pending miscellaneous applications closed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4813 & 4873 of 2015
COMMON ORDER :
Both these civil revision petitions are filed by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.2391 of 2014 on the file of VIII-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, aggrieved by orders, dated 06.10.2015, passed in I.A.Nos.389 and 391 of 2015. As parties are common, both these revisions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. In the suit filed by the petitioner, who is a tenant, he has filed I.A.No.389 of 2015 to recall PW-2 for the purpose of marking the electricity demand notices issued by the concerned authority on 13.05.2015, 12.06.2015, 11.09.2015 and computer generated copy issued by the Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. of Telangana State for the period from 01.01.2006 to 26.09.2015. Another application in I.A.No.391 of 2015 is filed to receive the aforesaid documents. By separate orders, dated 06.10.2015, both these applications are dismissed.
3. In this case, it is to be noticed that the aforesaid documents are not filed alongwith the suit, but during the cross-examination of PW-2, as defendant has referred to payment of electricity charges, only to cover up that lacuna, the aforesaid applications are filed; one to recall
PW-2 and another to receive the documents. No reason is assigned by the petitioner/plaintiff for not filing the documents earlier and hence, he cannot be allowed at this stage, to file such documents.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, these revision petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
18th December 2015 ajr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether documents filed belatedly during cross-examination can be admitted in a suit filed earlier.
Whether the revision petitions challenging dismissal of interim applications have any merit.
TENANT
LANDLORD
R. SUBHASH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
