Civil revision allowed due to poorly drafted impugned order. Petitioners' I.A. to cross-examine document authenticity was rejected. Court remands to lower court for fresh hearing with proper procedure within eight weeks.
Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh inquiry within eight weeks.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2678 OF 2016
O R D E R :
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 03.12.2015 in I.A.No. 111 of 2012 in O.S.No. 10 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Kota.
The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit. They filed I.A. No. 111 of 2012 to cancel the marking of Ex.A2, a xerox copy of a public document, during the absence of the petitionersdefendants and their advocate. The said I.A. was dismissed through the Order under revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the absence of the original document to vouch for its authenticity, the trial Court ought not to have marked the xerox copy, at the instance of the plaintiffs, that too in the absence of the defendants or their advocate.
Heard learned counsel for the respondents.
A perusal of the Order under Revision, which ran into three pages, at first glance, shows that it has been drafted so shabbily and ambiguously. The order is not cohesive, in the sense that it missed the clarity as to how and in what manner the I.A. was rejected. One important aspect, which this Court finds, is that the order and decree was drafted by two separate Presiding Officers and the names of the parties were also arrayed therein vice versa. This itself shows the care and attention with which the Junior Civil Judge has drafted the Order.
2
When the same was pointed out, both the learned counsel fairly submit that the matter may be remanded to the Court below for consideration afresh of the Interlocutory Application, within a fixed time-frame.
In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the decree and order dated 03.12.2015 in I.A. No. 111 of 2012 with a direction to the learned Junior Civil Judge to pass orders afresh, after conducting the inquiry, duly giving opportunity to both the parties to put-forward their case. Since the suit is of the year 2009, the learned Junior Civil Judge shall consider passing appropriate orders on the subject I.A. within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall
stand disposed of.
____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
03 rd November 2016
ksld
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting an interlocutory application ought to be set aside due to lack of clarity and potential clerical errors.
Petitioners (Defendants)
Respondents
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
