Dismissed

N. Raghuramulu v. Kummari Narsinga Rao

Telangana HC28 Mar 2022CRP/353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

President Justice A. Abhishek Reddy dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of an application to reopen evidence filed three years after evidence closure. The Court distinguished the cited precedent by the significant delay. The revision petition was found lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition No. 353 of 2022 was dismissed.

N. Raghuramulu Vs Kummari Narsinga Rao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

N/ONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 353 OF 2022

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order and Decreetal Order dated 25-01-2022^passed in 1A.No.1617 of²⁰²¹ⁱⁿ O.S.No.125 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil^{Judge, at} Gajwel.

¶7

Between:

¶8

N. Raghuramulu, S/o. Balaoah @ Bala Goud, Aged about 66^years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o. Thuniki Bollaram, Mulugumandal, Siddipet District.

¶9

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶10

AND

¶11

Kummari Narsinga Rao, S/o. Narayana, Aged about 33^years, Occ,^Private Employee, R/o. Thuniki Bollaram, l,4ulugumandal, Siddipet District.

¶12

...RespondenUDefendant

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to^{stay all further} proceedings in O.S.No.125 of 2015 on the file of on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Gajwel,^pending disposal of the above Civil Revision^Petition,in the interest of^justice.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. ARUN^KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VENNAMRAJ VENKATESHWARA^RAO

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY CIVIL REVI SION PETITION No.353 of 2022

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

Challenging the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Gajrvel dismissing I.A. No. 1617 of 2O2l tn O.S. No.i25 of 2Oi5 filed by the petitioner herein lor re-opening the petitioner's evidence, the present civ, Revision Petition is filed. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 125 oI 2015 Illed for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schecrure land

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has statecl that the petitioner with a view to adduce evidence of the neigh bouring land orvners has filed an application uncler Section 151 ol the Code of Civil procedure seeking to re-open the petitior_rer,s evidence and the said application was numbered as I.A. No.1617 ol 2021. Learned counsel has further stated that the Court below, without properry appreciating the facts of the case on the law laid down by this Court, has dismissed the interlocutory application made by the petitioner on a technical grouncl in a pedantic and mechanical manner and prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order and alrow the present revision. In support of his case, the learned counsel has relicd on

¶22

¶23

cRP-353-2022

¶24

Ankareddi^{Bhauaii Patrudu 1's' ParaadaApparao@} Butchibabul^'

¶25

Per contra,^{the learnedcounsel for the respondenthas} opposed^{the revision petition and stated that the orders Passed} inconsonance^{with the} by the^Courl below^are PerfectlY of the^{Code of CivilProcedureand also the rvell} provlslons Learned^{counsel has stated that} established PrinciPles^{of lau"} the^{petitioneris filing frivolous applications one after another in} the suit^{filed by the petitioner and that even the present LA' filed} for reopening^{of evidence} '^{which was dismissedby the Court} below,^{is one such application'Learned counselhas contended} that the^{evidence of the petitioner was closed on 18'03'2019 and} the matter^{was posted for arguments ofthe parties on} IS filing^frivolous 25.03.2019^{and ever srncethe Petitioner} applications^{only to fili the lacunaein his evidenceand to drag} on the^{matter'Leanedcounsel has stated that earlierthe} for aPPointment^olan filed^{I.A. No' 1089/2019} petitloner dismissed^{bY the Court} Advocate Commissioner,^w,hichwas below.^{Thereafter the petitioner liled I A' Nos17O and1 7 1 of} 2020^{seeking !o re-open and recallDWs 1 to 3' whichwere also} dismissed^{by the Court below uide commonorderdated} 16.03.2020.^{Now' the petitioner has filed the present1'A'}

¶26

r 2o2o (1)ALT¹²⁷ {s^{B )}

¶27

¶28

cRP 353 2A22

¶29

seeking to reopen his evidence. Learned counsel has contended that the Court below was perfectly^justified in dismissing the I.A. on the ground of laches and also on the ground that the petitioner is trying to fill up the lacunae in his evidence.

¶30

Heard and perused the record.

¶31

As seen from the record, the evidcnce of thc pcririoner was closed on 21 .1I .2018 and thereafter the evidence of the defendants was also closed on 18.03.2019 and the matter was posted lor arguments on 25.03.2019. The petitioner has fiied the present I.A. under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to re-open the evidence of the petitioner on 16.12.2021. Except stating that the neighbours will speak about the topography of the land and that the said evidence is crucial for proper adjudication of the case, nothing has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. seeking to reopen the evidence. The petitioner has not explained the relevancy of the said persons and as to why it has taken three years for filing the present application from the date of closure of er.idence of the petitioner. Once the evidence of the parties is closed and the matter is posted for arguments, the present applicatiorr filed after three years appears to be an afterthought and only to fill up the lacunae, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶32

¶33

has strongly^{placed reliance on the decision in Bhauaii Patrudu} (refened supra), a^{perusalof the said decision shows that in} that particular^{case the evidence of the parties thereinwas} closed on 22.Ot.2olg^{and the matter was posted for arguments'} Thereafter the^{app[cationwas filed for reopening of the evidence} and the same^{was dismissedon 16.04'2019'Even though'the} date of filing of^{the I.A. could not be gathered from the order'it} has to be construed^{that the said applicationwas filed} immediately or at^{the most, withinthree months from the dateof} closing of the^{evidence as the dismissal order isdated} 16.04.2019 . The^{party inthe judgment cited was diligent} enough to file the^{application immediatelyafter his evidence was} closed and in that^{context the Court has held as under:}

¶34

"Through such^{prayer,r'vhatis sought to be reopenedis the evidence} of the delendant^{that was closedThe phrase'Reopenthe matter'} should be unclerstood^{in that context but not in its literal sense of} reopening the matter^{itself, as it is ktlorvnto one and all, particularll'} the parties to the suit,^{that the suit is still at the stage of arguments} onl1.. Therefore, the^{trial Court ought not to have dismissed the} petition on such a^{meretechnicality. It shouldbe keptin mind by the} Courts particularly^{the trial Courts,thatmore than the shape' the} substance is essential^{to test the qualification The Judge s}rould be a} judicious-jurist but not procedural-pedant,^{lestthe justiceshouldbe a} casualty. In this^{case,the petitioner/clefendant, along with I A No 154} of 2019, also filed^{the chief-affidavit of D.W 3, who accordingto him is} an important^{\,'itnessto substantiate his delence plea taken in the} .vritten statement.^{ln suchan event, the Court ought to have taken} into consideration the^{totality of facts and circumstancesin the case}

¶35

¶36

cRP l:3 212:

¶37

and passed an order.^{However,unfortunatelythe trialCourtbasing} on technicalities, dismissed the^{petition.Therefore, the order} impugned needs to be set aside,"

¶38

There is no quarrel with the above^{proposition of law Iaid} down but in the case on^{hand the petitioner has kept quiet for a} period of more than three years from the^{date of closure ol his} evidence, nearly 2 Yz^years from the date^{of ciosureof the} evidence of defendants and also^{lr'henthe case is postedfor} arguments. There is absolutely^{no explanationil-r the affidavit} for the delay or laches in filing the^{petition to reopen the} evidence of the petitioner.^{Therefore, the judgmentrclied by the} learned counsel for the^{petitioner is distinguishable on facts and} not applicable to the facts of^{the present case.}

¶39

For the afore-stated reasons, this^{Court doesnot findany} merit in the present revision warranting^{interferenceof this} Court and accordingly the Civil^{RevisionPetition is dismissed.}

¶40

Miscellaneous petitions^{pending, if any, shall standclosed.} There shal1 be no order as to costs.

¶41

SDi.V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// //-^| LAD SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43