Allowed

Chilamcharla Prabhakar v. Chilamancharla Ravindranath Tagore and 12 others

Telangana HC7 Oct 2020CRP/535/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court allowed a civil revision petition in a partition suit, permitting the petitioner to submit missing documents necessary for the trial despite objections regarding diligence and the timing relative to evidence closure.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition allowed; petitioner permitted to file documents subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000 within two weeks.

Chilamcharla Prabhakar Vs Chilamancharla Ravindranath Tagore and… — Partition | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 535 OF 2020

¶7

(Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated dt. 6-2-2020 in l.A.No 1071 of 2019 in O.S.No. 5 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Surayapet, Nalgonda District.)

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chilamcharla Prabhakar s/o Late Raghunadham

¶10

...PET|T|oNER(PETTTTONER/DE4FENDANT NO. s)

¶11

AND

¶12

'I . Chilamancharla Ravindranath Tagore, s/o Late Raghunadham

¶13

... RESPONDENT(RESPONDENT/PLAtNTtFF

¶14

Chillamcharla Varalaxmamma, w/o Late Raghunadham

¶15

Kothagundla Sujatha, w/o Late Ramakrishna

¶16

Ardham Vijaya, w/o Chandrudu

¶17

Jella Anasurya, w/o Jella Nageshwara Rao

¶18

Lakumarapu Sreedevi, w/o Hareesh

¶19

Challamcharla Giridhar, s/o late Raghunadham

¶20

Chillamcharla Harikishan, s/o Late Raghunadham

¶21

Chillamcharla Anitha, w/o Chillamcharla Giridhar

¶22

Bodla Rangaiah, s/o Sathyanarayana

¶23

1 1. Devineni Rama Devi, w/o Devineni Srinivasa Rao

¶24

Kollu Srirajyam, w/o KolluLaxminarayana

¶25

Competent Authority (LA) and Revenue Divisional Officer

¶26

(Res.Nos. 2to 13 are not necessary parties)

¶27

... RESPONDENTS(RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS)

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶29

Petition under Section^'1 5'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 5 of 2014 on the file of the ll Addl. District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. BOMMAGANI PRABHAKAR

¶31

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1:SRl. P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶34

CIVI REVISION PETITION No.535 of 2020

¶35

OR-DER

¶36

This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.02.2020, passed by the Il-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, in I.A.No.1071 of 2019 in O.S.No.S of 2014, by which, the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.5 for receipt of certain documents on record, is dismissed.

¶37

Heard both sides.

¶38

Learned counsel for Revision petitioner/defendant No.S has contended that the petitioner herein has filed an application under Order 8, Rule-1A r/w. Section 151 CPC before the Court below to receive certain documents consisting of a registered lease deed, -,^{application under RTI Act, Copies of ROR and title deed book, copy} of plaintiff's passbook, copy of revenue register prepared under Rule 14-A, copy of mutation register for the year 2007-08, house tax receipts and adangal/pahanis for the years 1422 Fasli and 1423 Fas1i. He contended that the petitioner couid not file the aforesaid documents at earlier point of time, as the same were misplaced.

¶39

It is contended by the learned counsel for 1" respondenV plaintlff that the petitioner herein was not diligent enough in filing the aforesaid documents and he has failed to file those documents within the time granted by the Court below. It is contended that the petitioner is intending to file those documents after the closure of plaintiff's evidence, therefore, he cannot be aliowed to file those

¶40

¶41

documents at this stage. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in Lakshmi vs. Vitta Kristappa', wherein, the High Court has held that no permission for filing of documents can be granted after closure of trial. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of revision petition.

¶42

It is to be noted that the original suit has been filed for partition and separate possession of properties by declaring certain saie deeds as null and void. As the suit is for partition and separate possession, this Court is of the view that the ends of^justice would be met if an opportunity is given to the petitioner/defendant No.S to file the petition-mentioned documents, by imposing certain costs. The aforesaid^judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for 1" respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in that case, the defendants wanted to file the documents after closure of trial, whereas, in the case on hand, the trial is not yet concluded.

¶43

Therefore, this civil revision petition is allowed subject to condition that the petitioner/defendant No.5 shall pay costs of Rs.10,0001 (Rupees Ten thousand only) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the said costs, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the counsel for 1" respondentiplaintiff in the trial Court, Rs.2,000i- shall be paid in favour of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Rs.2,000/- in favour of Telangana State High Court Advocates Association and Rs.1,000/- in favour of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries Association, High Court for the

¶44

'2020^{LawSuit(AP)98}

¶45

¶46

State of Telangana. It is made clear that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 will be at liberty to file appropriate application before the Court below with regard to admissibility of the documents going to be filed by the

¶47

petitioner/defendant No.5. No order as to costs.

¶48

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶49

stand closed.

¶50

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The ll Addl. District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶55

One CC to Sri. V.L.B. Kesari Advocate, Corut of ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶56

One CC to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad.

¶57

One CC to the Secretary, Court lt/asters and Personal Secretaries Association, High for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶58

One CC to Sri. Bommagari Praghakar, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶59

One CC to Sri. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶60

Two CD Copies.

/\r.,r - PM V'\ /,-

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/10/2020

ORDER

o B rHE s14 I€
Y
o
ri><br>O 10 tr0y 2020
.'t],,
'',.:_C ,ai

¶66

CRP.No.535 of 2020

¶67

Allowing the Civil Revision Case

¶68

Sv Ac4J"L rr 2020 }rof

Chilamcharla Prabhakar v. Chilamancharla Ravindranath Tagore and 12 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chilamcharla Prabhakar v. Chilamancharla Ravindranath Tagore and 12 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratapa Ramakrishna Vs Rajendra Sharma Madhu and 5 others

Sayyeda Ayesha Vs Smt. Putta Shylaja (Shailaja)

Bhukya , Dharavath Pooja and 5 Others Vs B.S.S. Krishnakanth Naik

United India Insaurance Co.Ltd., Vs Smt. G.Padmamma and 7OTHERS.

Syed Aleem Vs Syed Ismail and Anr.

Syed Iliaz, Nizamabad. Vs Mohd. Osman, Nizamabad and Another