Allowed

Kondapally Sridhar Reddy v. Ramesh Reddy Meda

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022CMA/55/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a trial court's refusal to grant an injunction, alleging procedural non-compliance. The High Court held that documents relied upon in the interlocutory application were not marked as exhibits contrary to Rule 51 and Circular No. 2750. The appeal was allowed, and the matter remanded.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 23.12.2021 set aside; matter remanded to Court below to decide on merits with documents marked as exhibits.

Kondapally Sridhar Reddy Vs Ramesh Reddy Meda — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

(

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

CMA NO: 55OF 2022

¶7

Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure against the Order and Decree in 1.A.No.363 of 2021 in C.O.P.No.17 of 2021 daled 23.12.2021 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kondapally Sridhar Reddy, Sio. K. Venkat Reddy Age. 46^years, Occ Business Resident of Flat No,403,2 LH, Lanco Hills Manikonda,^Puppalguda, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad 500 0B9

¶10

...AppELLANT/pETrroNER

¶11

AND

¶12

Ramesh Reddy lr,4eda, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Reddy, Age.^{57 years, Occ.} Business Resident of Villa No. 70, River edge Villa,^{Ir.4anchirevula} Village, Gandipet ,',4andal, Ransa Reddy District, Telansa::_;u.?gR3:_r/RESpoNDENT

¶13

For the Appellant: SRI KISHORE RAI, ADVOCATE

¶14

For Respondent: Ms. MADHAVI PRIYA MANTENA, ADVCOATE

¶15

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶16

¶17

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTI CE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶18

THD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶19

C.M.A.No.SS of 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT: eer the Hotl'bLe the Chiel../r{slice salish Cha,r(lr@ -S/rorrrel

¶21

The present appeal is arising out of an order datec.l 23.\2.2021 passed in I.A.No.363 ol 2021 in COP.No.17 ol 2O2l by the learned Special J udge lor Trial & Disposal ol Commercial Disputes, Ranga Redd1, District at L. B. Nagar

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, has argued before this Court that the application i.e., LA.No.363 of 2021, which was an application preferred under Order XXXX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of injunction, was turned down referring to large number of documents. However, not a single document has been marked as an exhibit by the Court below and in respect of appendlx of evidence and witnesses examined, again ',NIL,' has been written. It has been stated that as per Rules 51 and 60 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the documents referred to by affidavit are required to be markecl as

¶23

exhibits and the^{same has not been done in the present} case. It has also^{been statedthat the practice of not} marking the^{documentsas exhibits was consideredby this} Court in Civil^{Revision PetitionNo' 1234 of 2O2Odecided on} 28.07.2021 and^{the High Court has issued a Circular} dated 28.09.2O2L.

¶24

AS The Circular dated^{28.O9.2O21 is reproduced}

¶25

un d er:

¶26

.HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶27

R.o. C.N o.2^7sO /^{O P C'ELLl2O2L} DATEt2S-O9'2O2I

¶28

CIRCULAR

¶29

Sub: Subordinate^Courts -^{Directionsof the Hon'ble} High Court in Civil Revision^{PetitionNo 1234of} 2010, dated^{28-07 -2021} -^{strict adherenceto} Rulcs 51 and 60^{of thc Civil Rules of Practicewith} regard to marking o[^documents -^Rcgarding'

¶30

Ref: Order of^{the High Court in C R P No 1234of} 2020, dated 28'07^-202.

¶31

Attention of all the Unit^{Heads and Judicial} Officers in the^{State of Telangana is invited to the order} of the Hon'ble^{High Court in C.R.P.No1234 of 2O2O'} dated 28-07-2021,^{whereina-ll the Subordinatecourts} are directed to^{mark the documentsfiled by the parties} to the lnterlocutory^{Applications, in strictadherenceto} Rules 51 and 60 of the^{CivilRules of Practice'before} deciding the sard^{aPPlications'}

¶32

c ;

¶33

The Rules 51 and 6O of the Civil Rules of^Practice

¶34

are extracted hereunder:

¶35

"57.^{Documentsreferredto in alJiddvit:'}

¶36

Document referred to b) affidavit^shau be referred to as exhibits and shall^{be rnarked} in the same manner as exhibits admitted^b)' the court and shall bear the certificate ill^Form No.16 which shall be signed by the^olijcer before whom the affidavit is taken,

¶37

60. Proof of Jacts by^qffidavit:-

¶38

Any fact required to be^proved uPon^an interlocutory proceeding shall unless^othenvise provided by these, rules, or ordered by^the court, be provided by afhdavit but the^Judge may, in any case, direct evidence to be^given orally, and thereupon the evidence shall^be recorded, and exhibits marked, in the^same manner as in a suit and lists of the^$itnesses and exhibits shall be^prepared and^annexedto the^judgment."

¶39

Therefore, while communicating the^{order of the} High Courr in C.R.P. No. 1234 of 2O2O, dared 28-07^-2021 ail the Judiciat Offrcers are hereby directed^{to ensure} strict adherence to Rules 51 and 60 of the Civil^{Rules of} Practice while disposing of Interlocutory Applications. Any deviation to the above will be^viewed seriously by the High Court. Receipt of this Circular may kindly^be acknowledged.

¶40

sd/' REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE)"

¶41

¶42

This Court,^{after carefulconsiderationoftlre} aforesaid^{Circularand the Civil Rulesof Practiceis of the} opinion^{that the documents should have been marked} while Passing^{the orderinresPect of the aPPlication} preferred^{underOrder XXXIX Rules1 and 2 of CPC'}

¶43

Resultantly'^{the impugned order dated23'12'2021 is} hereby^{set aside and the matter is remanded back to the} Court below^{to proceedahead in accordance with 1aw} keeping in^{view Rules5 1 and 60 of the Civil Rules ol} Practice^{and the executive instructions issued on the} subjectdated28.Og.2o2T,Thepartiesshallappearbefore It is needless^{to mentlon} the Court^{belowon 25 04'2022} being influenced^{bY its} that the^{Court belou', u'ithout} earlier^{order, shall pass an appropriate order in accordance} with law on^merits '^{The Court below sha11 also makea1l} possible^{endeavourrto decide the matterat an earlydate'}

¶44

.re appeal^{is accordinglyaliowed'}

¶45

¶46

¶47

The miscellaneous applications^{pending, if an-r', shall}

¶48

stand closed. There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶49

8tii,i,f$'S't*'-'^'//rRUE coPY/' t=tlfl* oFFlcER

¶50

To,

¶51

TheSoecialJudgeforTrialandDisposalofCommercialDisputes,Ranga Reoorj oistrlct^{aiL.B.nagar,Hvderabad} 2. A;;ti6'i;^{Rlsnoie{ai, nci,ocate (oPUC)} il; dd i" Mt.^{irruJniu eiiva trlantrena, Advocate (oPUC)} 4. Two CD CoPies MBC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210412022^-

-$t S iAI
1
I
<br>lt
2 2 [['i1 2022
C)o
i

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

CMA.No.55 of 2022

¶58