The court held that reopening arguments after pronouncing an order is impermissible. Consequently, the civil revision challenging an interim admissibility order was disposed of without adjudication, noting the petitioner could raise Article 47-A objections instead.
The civil revision petition is disposed of as no further adjudication is necessary.
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 M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.266 OF 2018
ORDER :
This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in I.A.No.389 of 2017 in I.A.No.329 of 2017 in O.S.No.1121 of 2007 dated 05.09.2017 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.
I.A.No.389 of 2017 was filed to reopen the argument of this petitioner on the ground that, on the date of hearing, the petitioner suffered a fracture due to fall on ground, thereby, he could not submit his argument.
It is an admitted fact that the Trial Court passed an order in I.A.No.329 of 2017 in O.S.No.1121 of 2007 on 06.09.2017 and I.A.No.389 of 2017 is filed to reopen the arguments after pronouncing the order in I.A.No.329 of 2017 and it is impermissible to reopen the argument after pronouncing the order. In any view of the matter, the revision against the order in I.A.No.389 of 2017 is not maintainable and therefore, no further adjudication is necessary in this revision petition, since the petitioner is permitted to raise objection with regard to admissibility of document on the ground of bar under Article 47-A and explanation thereto of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act.
With the above observation, the civil revision petition is disposed of.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date:01.11.2018 SP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a civil revision is maintainable against an order made to reopen arguments after the pendings order has already been pronounced.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent(s)
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
