This common order disposed of three civil revision petitions challenging a trial court's refusal to reopen evidence and admit documents discovered after the closure of plaintiff's case. The High Court held that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and dismissed the petitions.
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 P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6085, 6089 & 6107 OF 2017
DATED : 13.12.2017
Between :
Chakilam Ekambaram S/o.(Late) Venkataramanaiah, Aged about 60 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.H.No.12-1-99, Pinnavari Street, Warangal City/District & another
.. Petitioners
And
Venisetty Kamala (Andalu), W/o.R.B.Markandeya, Aged about 61 yrs, Occu : Housewife, R/o.H.No.8-10-5, J.P.N.Road, Warangal City/District.
.. Respondent
This court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6085, 6089 & 6107 OF 2017
COMMON ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.
opposed by the plaintiff/respondent. Plaintiff objected for receiving of those documents on the ground that no reasons are assigned as to how these documents are now traced and in whose custody those documents were lying earlier and how did they trace the documents, at this point of time in the suit, more so, when nothing was stated in the written statement nor during the course of crossexamination of plaintiff’s witness.
their advocate prepared two petitions and instructed the deponent to get photocopies of the said petitions and to get the same, he went out and by the time he came back, the suit was called and the defendants evidence was closed. He therefore, submits that it was not deliberate and wilful absence and that he should be recalled.
- However, a bare look at the facts in last para would show that the case was coming up for cross-examination of the 1 2012 (5) ALD 243,
respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the Court held that documents ought to have been received. There is no dispute about principle of law stated therein. The facts of this case are entirely different from the facts noted by this Court in the said decision. In the facts of this case the said decision do not come to the aid of the petitioners.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these civil revision petitions shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J
13th December, 2017 Rds
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause was made out to set aside the order closing the evidence of defendants and to receive additional documents borne voluntarily discovered after written statement.
Whether the discretion of the trial court in refusing to reopen evidence after closure was erroneous warranting interference by this Court.
Whether the principles laid down in M.R.Anjaneyulu Vs R.Subrahmanyam Achary are applicable to the facts of the present case regarding late production of documents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.R.Anjaneyulu Vs R.Subrahmanyam AcharyDistinguished¶29
M.R.Anjaneyulu Vs R.Subrahmanyam Achary, 2012 (5) ALD 243
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chakilam Ekambaram S/o.(Late) Venkataramanaiah
Venisetty Kamala (Andalu)
P.Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
