This court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting an application to summon a witness. The judge found no error in the trial court's decision, holding that summoning a witness is a party's choice and the lower court's refusal was not ground for interference.
No order as to costs; pending 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1544 OF 2018
DATED :09.03.2018
Between :
Md. Riazuddin S/o.Late Sri Rafiuddin, Aged 37 yrs, Occu : Govt. Employee, R/o.H.No.1-7-701/1, Flat No.201, Sai Nilayam, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal.
.. Petitioner
And
Smt.Challa Nirmala W/o.Sri Thirupathi Reddy, Aged 48 yrs, Occu : Household work, R/o.Pegadapally Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District & another.
.. Respondents
This court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1544 OF 2018
ORDER :
Petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.1173 of 2009 on the file of VII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, for injunction claiming that he is the owner of 266 Square yards of plot bearing No.262, Sy.No.25/A Kazipet Village, Hanamkonda, Warangal, and alleges that the defendants are interfering with the petitioner’s property.
defendants to be produced as witness when the defendants are not choosing to examine him. Therefore, I do not see any error in the decision arrived at by the court below, warranting interference by this Court.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J
9th March, 2018 Rds
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition for summoning a witness to examine the validity of the property transaction and boundaries.
Whether compelling the defendants to produce their alleged vendor (Tumma Papi Reddy) as a court witness was an error warranting interference by this Court when the defendants declined to examine him.
Md. Riazuddin
Smt.Challa Nirmala & another
P. Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
