Allowed

The Vizianagaram Municipality v. Korada Bhaskararao

Telangana HC8 Jul 2016CRP/4860/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition by a municipality that sought to reinstate its ability to present evidence in a property suit. The revision court set aside the trial court order closing evidence due to the commissioner's election duty absence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in I.A. no.30 of 2014 is set aside; the application to reopen evidence is allowed; the evidence on the side of the defendants is reopened.

The Vizianagaram Municipality Vs Korada Bhaskararao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4860 OF 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the unsuccessful petitioner/

¶5

2^nd defendant is directed against the orders dated 27.07.2015 of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge of Vizianagaram passed in I.A.no.30 of 2014 in O.S.no.414 of 2006 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requesting to reopen the evidence on the side of the 2^nd defendant-municipality to enable it to adduce evidence on its behalf.

¶6

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/2^nd defendant (‘the 2^nd defendant’, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs (‘the plaintiffs’, for brevity) and I have perused the material record.

¶7

3. To begin with, the facts, which led to the filing of this revision by the 2^nd defendant, in brief, are as follows:

¶8

On the date 06.05.2014, to which the suit was posted for the evidence on behalf of the defendants, the Commissioner of the

¶9

2^nd defendant–municipality was engaged in election duty in connection with the Assembly and Parliament elections, and hence, he could not contact the advocate. Therefore, for his non-attendance, the trial Court is pleased to close the evidence on the side of the defendants. However, the 2^nd defendant-municipality is having a strong defence. Therefore, it is necessary to seek reopening of the evidence to substantiate its defence. Hence, the petition is filed.

¶10

4. No counter is filed.

¶11

5. The trial Court dismissed the application of the 2^nd defendant–municipality, inter alia, observing that DW2 was crossexamined on 15.04.2014 and that despite adjourning the matter for adduction of further evidence by indicating that the matter is being adjourned as a last chance, the defendants were absent and had failed to adduce further evidence on their side and that therefore, there are no acceptable and reasonable grounds for reopening the evidence, more particularly, when the election duties will not be there for more than ten days.

¶12

6. The learned counsel for the 2^nd defendant/revision petitioner would submit that the Commissioner of the 2^nd defendant–municipality had offered a valid explanation for his absence on the date to which the matter was posted for adducing the further evidence on the side of the defendants before the trial Court and that the trial Court ought to have seen the nature of the property and the controversy involved in the lis and ought to have given an opportunity to the 2^nd defendant– municipality, which is a public body, to substantiate its defence in a suit involving a valuable immovable property. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs supported the orders of the trial Court.

¶13

7. Having given a detailed and thoughtful consideration to the facts and the submissions, this Court is of the considered view that one more opportunity can be given to the 2^nd defendant– municipality to adduce further evidence, if any, on its side having regard to the nature of the controversy and the subject matter of the suit. Further, when the matter is before the trial Court, it is just and fair to reopen the evidence for giving an opportunity to the 2^nd defendant-municipality. Viewed thus, this Court finds that there is acceptable merit in the revision and that the order impugned calls for interference.

¶14

8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the

¶15

order passed in I.A.no.30 of 2011 in O.S.no.414 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge of Vizianagaram is set aside; and consequently the said IA is allowed and the evidence on the side of the defendants is reopened to give an opportunity to the 2^nd defendantmunicipality to adduce its evidence. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

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

¶17

M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶18

Date:8^th July, 2016 KH

The Vizianagaram Municipality v. Korada Bhaskararao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Vizianagaram Municipality v. Korada Bhaskararao

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

M.Dharani Vs N.Raja Sekhar

Brijgopal Lakotiya Vs Smt. Taramani

P.Padmanabham Vs S.Sreedhar

Juvvaadi Bhaskar Rao, Vs Juvvadi Chokka Rao

Amancha Indrasena Vs Karnekanti Kathalu

Yenumala Srivani Vs Yenumala Gangadhara Rao