Allowed

Gajula Sirisha v. Gajula Indira Devi

Telangana HC3 Dec 2021CRP/829/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three civil revision petitions against an order dismissing late-filed applications to reopen evidence and admit a partition deed. The Court directed the trial court to reopen evidence for defendants who had pleaded possession of documents during their life but only recently traced them. It ordered the suit disposed of within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to reopen evidence and receive partition deed documents produced by defendants, subject to proof of document, with time limit for disposal of suit.

Gajula Sirisha Vs Gajula Indira Devi — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NOS: 793, 829 AND 830 OF 2020

¶7

Petition under Section^'l 15 of CPC to revise the order dated^{2010212020 madein} lA No.111 ol 2020, in OS No.160 of 2013 on the file of the Court of^{the I Additional} District Judge, Khammam.

¶8

Common C.T.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gajula Sirisha, D/o Venkata Narayana

¶11

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Gajula lndira Devi, W/o Late^{VenkataNarayana,}

¶14

Vemana Rambayamma, W/o^{Late Narayana,}

¶15

Talluri Naqamani, W/o Late^{Radha Krishna}

¶16

Vemana S-rinivas Rao, S/o Late^Narayana,

¶17

Vemana @ Rayapudi^{Rani,W/o Veerabhadram,}

¶18

6 Vem aⁿ a @^{peito i Ven kata} t:lf;t#3

¶19

E [,13?iH?,.,fs".i E RS/RE^{s poN D E Nrs}

^yf

co MMON PRAYER

lA NO: 2 oF 2020

Petition under Section^{151 of cPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High court may be pleasedto stay of all further} proceedings in the suit os No. 160/2013^{on the file of Hon'bleI AdditionalDistrict} Judge at Khammam^{pendingdisposal of the present CRP}

¶24

For the Petitioner^{: SRI P.RAMASHARANA SHARMA,Advocate}

¶25

For the Respondents^{: NONEAPPEARED}

¶26

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICEA. VENKATESHWARAREDDY}

¶28

c.R .P.Nos.793 .829^and 830 of 2020

¶29

COMMON ORDER:

¶30

Since all these^{civil revision petitions arise out of the common} order dated 20.02.2020,^{they are being disposedof by this common} order.

¶31

These civil revision^{petitionsare directed againstthe common} order^passed in^{l.A.Nos.110, 111 and 112 ol 202Q in O'S No 160 of} 2013 on the file of^{IAdditionalDistrict Judge, Khammam,} daled 20.02.2020, filed^{by the petitioner/defendantNo'3under} Section 151 C.P.C.,^{to re-open the evidenceof D.W 1 for marking of} documents as exhibits;^{to recall the evidence of D.W l for marking of} documents as exhibits;^{and under Order Vlll Rule 1 of CPC to} receive the enlisted^{documentson record to mark the sameas} exhibits. All these^{applicationsweredismissedthrough common} order dated 20.02.2020.^{Relevant Paragraph No.10 of the orderis} extracted as under:

¶32

"Keeping in view of the facts and^{circumstancesof this case,the} petitioner has filed present applications^{mainly to receive the Parikath} (Partition deed) daled 30.11.1961 and^{as contended by the respondent} No,1/plaintiff and the^{respondent No.3/defendant No.2 no plea has been} taken by the^{petitioner/defendantNo.3 in her writtenstatementand} additional written slatements^{withregardto lhe earlier partitionbetween} her father and others in the^{year 1961 and further, the pleaof the} petitioner that the above documents are recenlly^{traced on openingthe} trunk box belonging to their^{fatheris also found not tenable and hence, in} the facts and circumstances^{of this case wilhout there being any specific} pleading no oral or documenlary can be^{adducedand the petitionerhas}

¶33

¶34

AVR. J C.R P.Nos.793. 829 and 830 ot 2020

¶35

not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay caused in filing of the said documents and it is the setfled law that the Court shall judiciously exercise the discretion to recerve even those filed belatedly if there is any sufficient cause for earlier non-filing and such discretion shall be exercised in rare case and not as a matter of mere askjng to receive much less without sufficient cause and as such, there are no merits in the above applications and the above applications are Iiable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly".

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the record.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those documents pertain prior to the year 2013 and at the time of filing of written statement itself, the^{petitioner/defendant} No.3 has taken^a specific^plea at^{paragraph No.14 to the effect that after demise of} Sri Venkatanarayana, her^{father, the defendantNos.4and 5 suffered} untold mental agony and^{grief, and during his life time, he toldthem} that there are some^{documentsin respect of the suit schedule} property with him and in fact, the^{defendants were searchingfor the} documents^{possessed by Sri Venkatanarayanaand immediately} aftertracingoutthesaiddocuments,theyareintendingtofile additional written statement^{beforethe court.He further submiis that} these documents^{were tracedout and the same is mentioned in the} affidavit filed^{in supportof l.A.No.1 10 ot 2020 at paragraphNo'5 to} the effect^{that though the petitionermade severe searchfor the} partition documenis, she^{could not get it' but recently three days} ago, while she^{was cleaning the house,she found old trunkbox} locked by her^{father and she brokeopen the lock and found the} original Parikath^{(Partition Deed) executed between Gajula Ramaiah} and Gajula^{Venkata Naraana being minor rep' by his motherefter}

¶38

C.R.P.Nos.793,^{829 and 830 of2020}

¶39

death of^{Gajula Venkaiah'Thus' the petitioner is able to establish} that these^{documents werein the custody of her late father' who has} stated^{aboutthe same during his life time' and immediately'after} tracing^{out the said documents'they have filed three applications'} one to reopen^{the evidence of D'W'1' who is defendant No'1 ' vide} l.A.No.1 10^{of 2O2O', another to recall the evidence of D W'1for} marking^{of documents as exhibitsvide l'A'No'111 of 2020"and third} one to receive^{the enlisted documents on recordto markthe same} as exhibits^{vide l.A.No.'112 of 2O2O' He further submitsthat though} reasonable explanation^{is given on behalf of the defendantsthat} they made all^{efforts to produce the documents, the Court below has} not taken into^{considerationthe fact that theyhave taken such plea} in the written statement^itself

¶40

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner seeksto rely uponthe} judgment of this Court reported in John Santiyago^{and others vs'} Clement Dass and othersl^{equivalentcitation 2014 2 ALD184;} 2014 3 ALT 83. ln^{paragraphNo.6 of the said judgment, it is} mentioned that law is well settled^{that whensubstantialjustice and} technlcal considerations are^{pitted against each other,the cause of} substantial^justice deserves to^{be preferred.Learnedcounsel also} submits that no^prejudice would cause to^{the plaintiffsif the said} documents are received and, evidence of^{D.W.1 is re-openedby} recalling him for marking of the said documents as^exhibits.

¶41

ln the instant case, notices were served on the^respondents, but they remained absent even though notice on the^{learned counsel} '^{zor s1o1 scJ online(AP)153s}

¶42

¶43

C.R.P.Nos.793. B2g "nd B3O iv;;i

¶44

for respondents before the Court below was served. Though suit relates to the year 2013, the trial is still in progress. ln view of the explanation of the defendants in their written statement that as and when the document is traced out, they will file the same before the Court, I deem it fit to give a direction to the Court below to re_open the evidence of D.W.1 for further examination and to receive the document-Parikath (partition Deed) in evidence on behalf of defendants subject to proof, relevancy and rules of evidence.

¶45

ln the result, all these Civil Revision petitions are allowed, and consequently, the common order dated ZO.O2.2O2O in l.A.Nos.110, 111 and 112 of 2020 in o.s.No.160 of 2013 on the fire of r Additionar District Judge, Khammam, is set aside and these applications are allowed. The Court below shall re-open the evidence of D.W.1 and receive the documents subject to proof, relevancy and rules of evidence. Both parties to the suit shall cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit, and the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No.order as to costs.

¶46

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

SdIK.ONESIIV ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' G SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To 1. The I Additional^{DistrictJudge' Khammam'} i. o;;'iCi" stiF-niru^{shaiana Sharma, Advocate(oPUc)} 3. Two CD^CoPies 4. One Spare^CoPY Kj.

HIGH^COURT

DATED:03/12l2021

COMMON ORDER

CRP.Nos.793, 829 and 830 of 2020

¶53

*oe 1 H ti 14
o
.J 27 Jt'.N \UN.
,r:"

¶54

ALLOWED.

Gajula Sirisha v. Gajula Indira Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajula Sirisha v. Gajula Indira Devi

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

Mohammed Irfan Vs Ganta Gopal

G.Venkateshwarji Vs Md.Firoz and another

Smt. Janga Manasa Priyanka Vs Mr. Janga Karunakar Reddy

M/s Agi glaspac Vs M/s. Balaji Paper Mart

Smt. Salvadi Sandhya Rani Vs Salvadi Sunil Kumar

T. Raghunath Singh Vs Sri Mandha Raghunath Reddy