Allowed

Farhat Khatoon v. Md. Amjad Khan

Telangana HC2 Sept 2022CRP/806/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial Court's order dismissing an application to receive documents. The trial Court had refused to admit documents due to a defect in certification without reasons. The High Court set aside the order and directed the trial Court to receive and mark the documents subject to objections.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to receive the documents and mark them subject to objections of the other side. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

Farhat Khatoon Vs Md. Amjad Khan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

t^3258I

¶2

I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON NO: 806 OF 2022

¶8

Petition under Articre 227 of the constitution of rndia, aggrieved by the order dated 2511112021 in l.A.No.B79 of 2o21 in o.s.No.B ot 201i-o-n the fite ot the Junior Civil judge, at Tandur, Vikarabad District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Farh_at Khatoon, Wo.Aktar Ali, Age-56 years, Occ_House wife, R/o.H.No.7_41B /1 , Sitharampet, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Md Amjad. Khan, S/o-Aziz Khan, Age-53 years, Occ_ Business, R/o, H.No.73{9, Seetharampet, Tandur, Vikaribad fjistrici.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to grant stay ot att further proceedings in o.S.No.B ol 2011 on the file of the Junioi civir ;uog;, at Tandur, Vikarabad District.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. K LAKSHMI MANOHAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

i 1

¶21

I !

¶22

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVIT RAo NAIDU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.8O6 t)F 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Civil Revision petition is Iiled by the petitioner/ plaintiff assailing the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.879 of 2021 in O.S.No.8 of 2011 under Order 13 Rule 2(l)(2) of C.P.C r/w Sec. 1S1 C.p.C with a prayer to receive some documents. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner could not 6le certified copies. It seems the counsel filed those documents before the tria.l Court and tried to convince the Court on the ground that they are attested copies. However, the Court below, dismissed the application without assigning any reasons for not receiving the documents.

¶25

Learned counsel has represented that the petitioner could obtain ai tfre documents under the provisions of right to information and those are crucial documents for just disposal of the suit. The Court below with out assigning

¶26

¶27

l {

¶28

ssRjv, J CRP.No.8O5 ot 2022

¶29

any reason refused to receive the documents. Hence, the

¶30

order is liable to be set aside.

¶31

Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to receive the documents and mark the documents subject to tl.e objections of the other side.

¶32

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶33

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

SD/- T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Junior Civil Judge, at Tandur, Vikarabad District.

¶39

One CC to SRl. K LAKSHMI MANOHAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

Two CD Copies

-t {\l,^)'

I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912022

J. L^t
tl
a
".,s
: ot.,* C'
<br>ai
:'::.-

ORDER

CRP.No.806 ot 2022

DISPOSING THE CRP

WTHOUT COSTS

$-u'

Farhat Khatoon v. Md. Amjad Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farhat Khatoon v. Md. Amjad Khan

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

R.Venkat Reddy Vs the South Central Railways and 2 Ors.

Smt. G. Janaki Vs Vasuja Susheela

T. Rajeswar Vs Govt. of A.P.

Varsha Bhayyaji Pipare Vs The Union of India

E.Rajavva and 2 Others Vs K.P.Gangaram

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Narlagala Manimala