Allowed

Angole Bharath Bhushan v. Mirza Younus baig

Telangana HC15 Dec 2021CRP/884/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two civil revision petitions, granting the petitioner opportunity to adduce evidence previously eschewed due to COVID-19 and court closures, while imposing costs for delay.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions allowed; petitioner granted opportunity to adduce evidence; costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed for each CRP; suit to be disposed of within one month.

Angole Bharath Bhushan Vs Mirza Younus baig — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 881 AND 884 0F 2021

¶7

CIVIL REVISI N PETITION NO: 881 OF 2021

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the docket Order dated.22.03 .2021 passed in l.A.No.32 ol 2021 in O.S.No.220 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Angole Bharath Bhushan, S/o.Narayana, Aged.55 years, Occ. Nil, Fyo. 2-11-35, Bobbili Veedhi Jandagally, Weekly ttilarket, Nizamabad.

¶11

... Petitioner/Petitioner/defe ndant

¶12

AND

¶13

Mirza Younus Baig, S/o.Mirza lbrahim Baig, aged 42 years, Occ. Denter and Painter, R/o. H. No.5-1 1 -754, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.

¶14

...RespondenURespondenUPlai ntiff

¶15

lA NO: 'f OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant the stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.220 of 2O14 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad till the finalization of main Civil Revision Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. LAXMIKANTH SARMA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s MIRZA NISAR AHMEO BAIG

¶19

.-2-

¶20

CIV L REVISION PETITION NO: 8 84 0F 2021

¶21

Petition under Ar icle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the docket Order dated.22.03.202' passed in l.A.No.33 of 2021 in O.S.No.220 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the F^.incipal Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad.

¶22

Between:

¶23

Angole- Bharath E hushan, S/o. Narayana, Aged 55 years, Occ. Nil, F/o.2-1 1-35, BobbiliVeedhidar iagally, Weekly Mdrket, Niiamabail.

¶24

...Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant

¶25

AND

¶26

Mirza Younus Bp 3, S/o.Mlrza lbrahim Baigh, aged 42 years, Occ. Denter and Painter, R/o.H.Nr .5-1 1 -754, Yellammagutta, Nizamabail.

¶27

... Respon de nURes pondenUPlaintiff

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶29

Petition under s -'ction 15'1 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed there vith, the High court may be pleased to grant the stay of all further proceedings in ).s.No .22o of 2o14 pending on the file of senior civit Judge, at Nizamabad till the fir alization of main Civil Revision petition.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitic ner: SRI T. LAXMIKANTH SARMA

¶31

Counsel for the Resp< ndent: M/s MIRZA NTSAR AHMED BA|G

¶32

The Gourt made the fc llowing: COMMON ORDER

--lr.'-

--!<--_

T}IE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSENREDDY}

¶37

CIVIL REVISION PETITION^{NOS'881ANd884 Of 2021}

¶38

COMMO ORDER:

¶39

Both these revislons are^{filed aggrieved by separate docket} orders dated 22,03.2021^{dismissing in I.A.No.32 of 2021and} I.A.No.33 of 2O2t in O.S.No.220 of^{2OL4 by the Senior CivilJudge,} Nizamabad.

¶40

The case of the^{respondent/plaintiff is that he was falsely} implicated in Cr.No.242 of^{2010 registeredfor the offencesunder} Sections 2gO, 324 and^{506 IPC beforethe IV Town Police Station,} Nlzamabad. After investigatlon,^{charge sheet was filed and the case} was numbered as C.C.No.25^{of 2011 and tried beforethe I Additional} Judicial First class^{Magistrate,Nizamabad.The matterwas transferred} to the Special^{N4obileCourt, Nizamabadand renumbered as CC'No'322} of 2012. After considering^{the oral and documentaryevidence, the} respondent/plaintiff was^{acquittedvide judgment dated16'09'2013'} Thepetitioner/defendantalsoindulgedinactsoffilingseveralfalse cases against the^{respondent/plaintiff.Hence,the respondent/plaintiff} filed a suit in o.s.No.22O of^{2O]L4beforethe PrincipalDistrictJudge,} Nizamabad, seeking^{damages ofRs.5,00,000/- formalicious} prosecution.WrittenStatementwasflledbythepetitioner/defendant No.1.

¶41

It is further submitted^{that I.A.No'32of 2O2:-was filed by the} petitioner/defe nd a nt for^{reopeningthe defendant sideevidenceto} adduce further evidence,^{which was closed on 04'O2'2O2t'I'A'No'33} of 2Q2L was^{filed to take on record the evidence of D'W 1 by setting} aside the eschewal^{of evidencedated 11'03'2020and allow to proceed}

¶42

¶43

with the case. T\ /o separate docket orders were^{passed by the Court} below dismissing both the applications on 22.03.202L.

¶44

In the affir avit filed in support of the aforesaid two applications, the petitioner/d :fendant stated that due to COVID-19^pandemic situation he coL d not contact his advocate and could not^produce witnesses. His a lvocate informed him that he is busy in other Courts and in such circ rmstances, he could not^produce evidence.^However, he is now ready .o adduce evidence and complete his side evidence.

¶45

The impL Jned orders were passed glving a finding that the defendant failec to adduce to evidence from 21.08.2019 and despite several condit cnal orders passed and costs imposed, the petitione r/defen ,ant failed to appear and as such his chief evidence was eschewed on 11.03.2020. The matter was posted for further evidence of the defendants and since there was no representation, his further evidencr was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. The same refle:ted that the petitioner/defenda nt was not appearing regularly to a lduce his evidence and as such, the Court below eschewed the )vidence of D.W.l. The Court below also noted that regular Court r tarted functioning from 06.01.2021 and the suit was posted from tir re to time from 06.01.2021 to 21.01.2021 and later to 04.02.2027. H^,wever, the defendant did not choose to lead further evidence. The instant applications came to be filed on 10,02.2021. Holding that the petitioner/defend a nt intended to delay the proceedings a d did not show any valid grounds to produce and complete his e idence, the applications were dismissed.

¶46

It is a I nown fact that the physical Courts were closed in the third week o' March 2020 and COVID-19 SOP protocols were implemented f om time to time. It cannot be denied that the litigants

¶47

and also the counsel appearing for them were put to lot of inconvenience. Though the Court below pointed out that the regular Court started functioning from.06,01.2021, still, lt cannot be denied that there were COVID^protocols and SOPS implemented from time to time and the Courts below were not fully functional.

¶48

Taking into consideration the COVID-19 pandemic situation and first and second waves of COVID infectlons, during^{which time there} was loss of lives and also vaccination drive being undertaken^{by the} Government and private agencies, this Court is of the^{view that} reasonable opportunity has to be^given to the^petitioner to^adduce evidence.

¶49

In the result, the civil revision^petitions are allowed. However, taking into account the delay being caused by the^{petitioner,costsof} Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is imposed in^eachCRP payable to the plaintiff through his counsel appearing in the Court below within a^period of one week from the date of receipt^{a copyof} this order. The^petitio ner/defend^a nt shall^{appear before the Court} below on the next date on which the suit^{is posted and shall give list of} all the witnesses he is^proposing to examine.^The suit^shallbe disposed of within a^period of one month from^{the date of receiptof a} copy of this order.

¶50

Pending miscellaneous^petitions, if any, shall^{stand closed.}

¶51

There shall be no order as to costs

¶52

SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY// 6b SECTION^OFFICER

¶53

To, 1. The Principal^{Senior CivilJudgeat Nizamabad'} 2. 6nl'cC^{a'SriT. Laxmikanth S"arma'Advocate[OPU^C-]} 2 o;; aa^{io vtl. virzu NisarAhmed Baig' Advocate[OPUC]} 4. Two CD^CoPies E One SPare^CoPY MMK gbr

¶54

HIGH COURT

¶55

DATED: 1511212021

¶56

:l
1 S€ SIA rC:
/1*
q
)!'r!
ic) 2 7 Drc?0?1 't_
1r)
..:i

¶57

COMMON ORI)ER

¶58

CRP.Nos.881 \ND^{884 of 2021}

¶59

DISPOSING^"HE BOTH CIVIL^{REVISION PETITIONS}

¶60

b
),D

Angole Bharath Bhushan v. Mirza Younus baig

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angole Bharath Bhushan v. Mirza Younus baig

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. Richa Holdings Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Mr. Raja Rao Mulkala Vs The Union of India

M/s. United Rail Road Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another

Kachi Reddy Munni Vs The State of Telangana

Singana Moina Raju, Vs The State of Telangana

AngoleBharathBhushan Vs Mirza Younus Baig