Dismissed

Nadapana Govinda Rajulu v. Chinta Ravindra Reddy

Telangana HC13 Aug 2018CRP/3673/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions filed against an order of the Senior Civil Judge dismissing an application for summons to the Tahasildar. The court held that since the documents were already marked and their authenticity was not disputed, summoning the Tahasildar was unnecessary, and no specific purpose was shown.

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed; no order as to costs.

Nadapana Govinda Rajulu Vs Chinta Ravindra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3587 & 3673 OF 2018

¶2

COMMON ORDER :

¶3

Since the petitioner and subject matter of both these Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶4

These revision petitions are filed against the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram in EA.No.33/2018 in EP.No.74/2015 in OS.No.686/2014 and EA.No.32/2018 in EP.No.73/2018 in OS.No.685/2014, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1 to 7 and Section 151 CPC to issue summons to the Tahasildar, Palakol, to produce the records relating to the ration card and voter identity card of the petitioner was dismissed.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/Decree Holder has wrongly mentioned the name of the petitioner and his father, as such production of these documents are very much necessary in the EP, but, the Court below without considering the said aspect dismissed the application.

¶6

In this case it is to be seen that the trial Court dismissed the EAs observing that already household card and Voter identity card of the petitioner/J.Dr. were marked as Exs.B1 and B2; that in the cross-examination of petitioner/J.Dr. also there is no suggestion that these documents are fabricated and forged; and that since the

¶7

¶8

authenticity of these documents is not disputed by the D.Hr., summoning the Tahasildar again to prove these documents is not necessary. It is also observed by the Court below that without there being specific purpose, summons to the Tahasildar for producing the records cannot be issued.

¶9

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to entertain these revisions.

¶10

Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

¶11

No order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶13

in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 13.08.2018 t k.

Nadapana Govinda Rajulu v. Chinta Ravindra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadapana Govinda Rajulu v. Chinta Ravindra Reddy

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

M/S K Vasudeva Rao and Co. Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Scr Caterers and Dry Fruits, Vs Mr.Ashwani Lohani

M. Umarani Vs State of Telangana

Velivela Padma Rani Vs The state of A.P

Nadapana Govida Rajulu Vs Yelagala Subba Reddy

Sri.Prem Sharat Kumar Vs State of A.P.