Dismissed

Smt.Vaddy , Siddireddy Sri Rama Krishna Veni , Sailu, v. Vaddy Venkata Sateesh Kumar

Telangana HC3 Mar 2017CRP/1034/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These two civil revisions were dismissed. The High Court held that there was no error of jurisdiction in the lower court recalling a witness in a custody proceeding to confront her prior deposition from a separate civil suit, permissible under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The two civil revisions were dismissed.

Smt.Vaddy , Siddireddy Sri Rama Krishna… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1034 & 1035 of 2017

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri P. Radha Krishna, counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Nitender Singh, representing Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, counsel for the respondent.

¶4

These two revisions arise between the same parties out of the same proceedings. Therefore, they are being disposed of by the common order.

¶5

The respondent herein filed G.W.O.P.No.1150 of 2011 before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, against the petitioner herein, who is his wife, seeking custody of their minor son. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed M.C.No.2 of 2015 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol, against the respondent, wherein she was examined as PW.1

¶6

The trial in G.W.O.P. has not yet concluded. The petitioner had also given evidence as RW.1 in the G.W.O.P.

¶7

Alleging that there is a discrepancy between the evidence given by the petitioner in the G.W.O.P. and the evidence given by her as PW.1 in M.C.No.2 of 2015, the respondent filed I.A.No.1598 of 2016 to recall the petitioner/RW.1 to confront such portion of the deposition of her’s as PW.1 in M.C.No.2 of 2015. He also filed I.A.No.1382 of 2016 to receive the certified copy of her deposition in M.C.No.2 of 2015.

¶8

¶9

MSR,J C.R.P.Nos.1034 & 1035 of 2017

¶10

These two applications were opposed by the petitioner stating that earlier the respondent had filed I.A.No.2079 of 2012 to recall her as a witness for the purpose of cross-examination, that the same was allowed, that C.R.P.No.5078 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner in this Court against the said order and that this Court permitted crossexamination of the petitioner only for one sitting on 17.10.2012.

¶11

By a separate order, dated 04.01.2017, the Court below allowed both applications i.e., I.A.Nos.1598 and 1382 of 2016. It observed that the respondent wanted to confront the statement of the petitioner in M.C.No.2 of 2015 on the ground that it is substantially different and intended to prove the same, that the trial is still pending and even though the petitioner was recalled earlier, since the purpose now putforth is different and distinct, it would not be appropriate to reject the request. It observed that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be given to recall the petitioner for further crossexamination by strictly limiting the questions with regard to confronting of her deposition in M.C.No.2 of 2015.

¶12

It also observed that the deposition of the petitioner in M.C.No.2 of 2015 is a relevant document under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the receipt of the document is necessary for confronting the witness so as to elicit the real fact.

¶13

Assailing the same, these two Revisions are filed.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below erred in receiving the certified copy of the deposition of the petitioner in M.C.No.2 of 2015 and also in permitting to recall the petitioner for

¶15

¶16

MSR,J C.R.P.Nos.1034 & 1035 of 2017

¶17

further cross-examination, particularly in view of the order dated 15.10.2012 in C.R.P.No.5078 of 2012, where only one opportunity was granted for cross-examination of the petitioner on 17.10.2012. He also referred to a series of facts and disputes between the parties adverted to in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of C.R.P.M.P.No.1374 of 2017 in C.R.P.No.1034 of 2017 to contend that the purpose of this exercise initiated by the respondent is to harass the petitioner and for no other reason.

¶18

Counsel for respondent resisted these Revisions.

¶19

Clause (4) of the Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. makes inapplicable clause (3) of the said provision to document produced for cross-examination of witnesses of the plaintiff. Similar provision is contained in Order VIII Rule 1-A (4) of C.P.C., which makes inapplicable clause (3) of the said provision with regard to the documents produced for cross-examination of the witnesses.

¶20

In the present case, the respondent, who was the petitioner in G.W.O.P., no doubt invoked order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. for the purpose of confronting the deposition of the petitioner in M.C.No.2 of 2015 to her and to recall her for the said purpose. In view of the clause (4) of Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C., in fact, the application in I.A.No.1382 of 2016 was superfluous and was unnecessary and even without the said application, the Court below was bound to permit for production of the said document for confronting to the petitioner. The proceedings between the parties have no doubt gone on for more than five years and the matter has reached this Court also more than once.

¶21

¶22

MSR,J C.R.P.Nos.1034 & 1035 of 2017

¶23

In this scenario, when the Court below had allowed receipt of the certified copy of deposition of the petitioner and permitted the respondent to confront her with the same, and the said procedure would normally not take more than half an hour, and when the Court below has given cogent reasons why such an opportunity is to be given, it cannot be said that there is error of jurisdiction in the action of the Court below in permitting to recall the petitioner or in permitting receipt of the deposition of the petitioner in M.C.No.2 of 2015, more so, when the Court below has limited the further crossexamination of the petitioner in the G.W.O.P. only to questions regarding her deposition in M.C.No.2 of 015. Therefore, I do not find any merit in these Revisions.

¶24

Accordingly, these two Revisions are dismissed. No order as to

¶25

costs.

¶26

It is stated by both sides that the matter is listed on 21.03.2017. The Court below on that day shall permit the respondent to crossexamine the petitioner with regard to her deposition in M.C.No.2 of 2015 and proceed further in the matter.

¶27

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶28

____________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶29

3^rd March 2017

¶30

Note:

¶31

Issue C.C. in one week. (b/o) mar

Smt.Vaddy , Siddireddy Sri Rama Krishna Veni , Sailu, v. Vaddy Venkata Sateesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vaddy , Siddireddy Sri Rama Krishna Veni , Sailu, v. Vaddy Venkata Sateesh Kumar

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

Chintala Suresh Vs Chintala Kalyani Santhi

K. Muruganda Pillai Vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam

Achanta Venkata Satyanarayana Vs Achanta Tripura Sri

K.Damodar Goud Vs The Joint Collector

The Global Green Company Limited, a company incorporated Vs The Presiding Officer , Labour Court-Ii, Chandra Vihar

Nemani Veer Raju Vs Shri M.Rajkanth Rao