Allowed

Chakali Pandaiah, v. Chakali Balaiah

Telangana HC12 Feb 2016CRP/4398/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the civil revision, setting aside the trial court's order dismissing an application to admit documents. The court held that the suit was pending in 2014 and mere receipt of documents in 2009 does not preclude their admission, leaving objections to proof and relevancy for the trial.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.388 of 2015 allowed; impugned order of 14.9.2015 set aside; documents admitted subject to proof and relevancy.

Chakali Pandaiah, Vs Chakali Balaiah — Partition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4398 OF 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. The said suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s share. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.388 of 2015 seeking permission of the Court to receive certain documents and for marking the same. The said application was filed after one year of filing of the suit.

¶5

2. A counter was filed by the respondents stating that the documents were obtained in the year 2009 itself and challenging those documents, W.P.No.18221 of 2009 was filed in the High Court and as such, they cannot be looked into for any purpose.

¶6

3. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner with the following observations:

¶7

“The petitioner has filed two documents i.e., orders of Joint Collector in Case No.D1/6145 of 08 and CC of ROR. It can be seen from the stamp affixed on the documents i.e., orders of Joint Collector and ROR that the certified copies delivered on 11.8.2009 and 17.1.2009 respectively. Thus the petitioner has obtained the certified copies of documents in the year 2009 itself. There is no whisper in the petition why the petitioner did not file the documents from 2009 to 2015. There is no specific plea in the petition that the petition list mentioned documents were misplaced. The petitioner has not also pleaded that

¶8

despite his due diligence, the documents could not be traced. He has also not stated as to when the documents were obtained. Thus absolutely there are no valid reasons assigned by the petitioner to accord leave. Hence there are no merits in the petition. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for petition relief.”

¶9

4. The trial Court failed to see that the suit is of the year 2014 and the trial has not yet commenced. Mere receipt of the documents does not mean that those documents can be marked or the defendants are prohibited from raising objections with regard to the proof or relevancy. That is only an application seeking permission to receive the documents. Since the suit is of the year 2014, this Court is inclined to allow I.A.No.388 of 2015.

¶10

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 14.9.2015, and the documents can be received, but it is open to the trial Court and the defendants to raise objection with regard to marking of those documents on proof and relevancy at appropriate point of time. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

6. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

______________________________________ JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶13

Date: 12.2.2016 AMD

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶15

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4398 OF 2015

¶16

DATE: 12.2.2016

¶17

AMD

Chakali Pandaiah, v. Chakali Balaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakali Pandaiah, v. Chakali Balaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs S.Masthan Vali

The North West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs S.Masthan Vali, Minor, Aged 9 Yewars, rep by natural guardia

Bandaru Jhansi Rani Vs Kambala Satish

Akula Venkata Nagi Reddy Vs v.T.Sreenivasan

Vemunandana Ramakrishnam Raju Vs Dada Srinivas

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Nutheti Gangaiah