A Civil Revision seeking interference with an order allowing reopening of evidence or formal closure despite a defect of non-reservation for judgment was disposed of.
No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions 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.
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4678 of 2014
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/ defendants, aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2014 in I.A.No.526 of 2014 in O.S.No.14 of 2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District.
Heard both sides and perused the impugned order and the grounds urged in the revision.
No doubt, the impugned order as if no counter filed, is not correct, from counter filed. It is also not reflecting about another application filed to send for the documents. However, the fact remains that the matter is not reserved for judgment and from formal closure of the evidence posted for arguments, to say, for all practical purposes, as per the settled law, when the suit is pending, no formal application of reopening is even necessary and even any such application filed once allowed, there is nothing to interfere from that defective order of the lower Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date:02-11-2017 pab
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition is maintainable against an order which did not reserve the suit for judgment due to a defect.
Petitioners/Defendants
Undisclosed Respondent
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
