Allowed

Tajawath Ramesh v. Vemuri Padma, and another

Telangana HC28 Feb 2023CRP/1489/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition set aside an order dismissing an application to summon a bank manager for evidence. The court held that despite the petitioner being allowed to deposit bank statements, summoning the manager to give evidence was warranted to avoid prejudice and ensure a fair trial regarding cheque dishonor.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15-04-2019 dismissing the I.A. to summon the branch manager is set aside, and the I.A. No. 2081 of 2018 is allowed.

Tajawath Ramesh Vs Vemuri Padma, and another — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^3260l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1489 OF 201 I

¶7

Petition under^pr,Iicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia agatnst the Orders dated 15-04-2019 passed in l.A.No. 2081 of 2018 in O.S.No. 100 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/Sts (POA) Actcum-Vll Additional District Judge, Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Tajawath Ramesh, S/o.Bhadru, Age. 34 years, Occ. Agriculture Ryo.Balappeta, H/o.Ballepalli Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

¶10

...PETITIONERY PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . Vemuri Padma, W/o.Late Venkateswar Rao, Occ. Household- Cum Business, Aged about 46 years, Fl/o. Laxmltulasiprasad House, H.No.4-85/3, Vaddi Gudem, Amalapuram, East Godavari Diskict- 533201 .

¶13

Vemuri Roshan Chandra, S/o.Venkateswar Rao , Age. 26 years, Occ.Business, Rl/o. Laxmitulasiprasad House, H.No.4-85/3, Vaddi Gudem, Amalapuram, East Godavari District- 533201 .

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶16

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Special Sessions Judge For Trial Of Cases under S.Cs And S.Ts ( POA )Act-Cum-Vll^{Addl. District} and Sessions Judge, Khammam, to summon the Manager of Karnataka Bank Ltd., Khammam Branch to give evidence pertaining to the Cheque and Cheque Returned Memos involved in the Suit by setting aside the dismissal Orders passed in 1.A.No.2081 of 2018 in O.S.No.100 of 2014 dated 151O412019.

¶17

l.A. NO 20F20 9

¶18

Petit on ur dr:r Sect on 148 of CPC praying that in th,-. r;i^{.cur'rstances} stated in lhe alirdavit fr :c in support of the petition, the High Cr;ur ma,,be pleased to extend the inter: r stay orders dated 18-09-2019 grarted r l,\ No. 1 of 2019 in CRP No 14Bg o 2 )19 until further orders.

¶19

t.A. NO 30F20 9

¶20

Deti: on ur d()r Section 148 of CPC praying that in th{} (ircunrstances stated in the affrcavit fr lc in support of the petition, the High Coul ma)'be pleased to extend the nterir r:;tay orders granted on 28-10-20191i11^'1€,--.1 2019 in lA No. 1 of 2019 rn CRD No 1,189 of 2019 until [urther orders

¶21

l.A. NO: 4 OF 20 I

¶22

Petition ur lerr Section 151 CPC praying that in lhe oir:L mst3nces stated in the aff davii filec in support of the petition, the High Cour |ray be pleased to extend the rnte'rr s tay orders granted on 20-11-2019 till 06.-l:l 2019 in lA No. 1 of 2019 ln CRP No 1489 of 2019 until further orders.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 1

¶24

Petition ur i€r Section 15.1 CPC praying that in the cir;l'rst,rnces stated rn the affidav I filec rn support of the petition, the High Courr nray be pleased to extend the interrr stay orders granted on 2O-11-2019 in LA Nc 1 of 2019 in C.R.P No.1489 of 2019 rntil further orders.

¶25

Counsel for the I 'etitioner : Smt. UMA DEVI NAMA

¶26

Counsel for the llespondents: KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR

¶27

The Court made hr-. following: ORDER

¶28

-I-H I., I IONOT] RABI,E SIiI JUSTICI- A.SANI'TIOSTI RT, I)DY

¶29

C.R.l'.No.l {tl9^()F' 2019 oRl)1,.R

¶30

I'his cir il revisiot.t pctition under-^Articic 22,1 0l' the

¶31

(.'on stitr-rtion ol'lndia is directcd against tliL' orcler dated 15.0'1.1019 in I.A.No.20tlI ol'20 l8 in 0.SNo.l00 ol20 14, on thc lilc ot'thc Special Sessions Judge tbr'I'rial ol Cases under^the SCs^{and S'Is} (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khanrnrarn. thc said application filed b1 the^pctitioner lplaintil'l) runde r' Ordel XVI Rule 7A read with Section l5l CPC seeking to surnrnon thc Blanch Manager of Karnataka Bank^{[-imitcd to give} his ci'idcnce, was dismisscd.

¶32

2.. Heard leamed counsel lor the petitioner as well as leamed counsel fbr the respondents. Perused the rccord

¶33

-]. I'he petitioner-plaintiff filcd the sirit O.S.No.l00^{ol' 2014} against the respondents-defednants for rccovery^of uonev.^While so when thc mattcr was postcd fol tnal. the^petitioner Iilcd LA.No.208 I o{'20 l8 under Order XVt Rulc 7A^{read with Section} I5l CPC seeking to summon the Branch^{Manage r} of^Kamataka Ilank t.imited to give his evidcncc.^{In thc alllda"'it liled in supporr}

¶34

t----

¶35

ol' thc ,r;trrli :-ir,rr. tltc I)ctitio.al. srarc,.l that lic r: r,.,, lr r r(.c()Lrrt iu Ka'.atakr Ilarrk I-irritcd. Ihc pctitiorc. pa cl Irs l aklrs lrr rrar ol'1lrr',.:c ch :ilLrt s t() Iiltc ]iltc :crlLtr.i Veniratc.,r"lrl. I.iao. ri ltrt is ltLrsba,d rl ,csr..clc.,t . I a,d larlr:r ,rt' rc:,P,r,dc,t \o.l tou alcls pall 5xl1- considcratiorr and thc said transt.r;tior was nul lxatcrialircd \'hilc r.clirndirle. thc said arrrorrLt. the saitl Vcnkali.srrar Iia,r issLred u clreque lbr I{s.g laklts r.r la'.ur. ol the ltcLition rr' ,rrtrl on l)re s!.ntation ol- the s tnte. t[ \ as dishorrourcd d.c to insur'rlcic'rt lunds. Hercc. t ^e petiti..er Itlccl ir .r-ri( f, r rc:o,. crr ol n.rorrcv fbr Rs l2.2tr. I i l,'- and in olricr to plo'c thc rransactior.r, cvidencc ol' the Bank \4anapcr V! ZIS founcl cssent al . Ilence. an application was fil:c [o iunluton the Ila nk lrLnugcr lirl tltc purpose ol givitr I cr.idcncc The rcspondt nrs rcsisred thc said application b1 l'lirg countcr They stirtcd t la( r)o docurlcnt rvas filed by the pcli.ir:ner that he paid thc amo[ t1s to iare Ve,turi Venkatesrvar R ro LlrrtLrgh chcclucs and witltouL i u(rh docurrents. summoning of rhe B rrk I\4anagcr n'ould n.t ser .'e a., purllose. On a consideration .rl t re t.atcr-ial ou rec.r'd, the ,r.ial ('ourt clisnrissed the said applicaLio I rhrcugh thc impugncd or< er dared I 5.01.10 l9 holding that rrrr:cr Se,crion

¶36

i I I

¶37

l lh ol' rhc \cgotiablc lnslrurncnts Act (lbr stroli.^'thc \ct'). the'

¶38

( oult slrtLll ort production o1'bank's slip or mcnro can bc r-eceivc<j in .'r iricnce ancl marked thlough thc petitioner. Challenging the suid ortlcr. thc 1;rescnt rcr ision is filcd

¶39

,1 I.carned counsel appearing lor the petitioner subrnits that the trial^('or-rrr committed error in dismissing the application filed by thr' pctitioncr and b1, nllslving thc application. no^pre'.iudicc rrould be caLrscd lo thc casL- o['the rcspondcnts. Learned counsel prayed to sct aside the impugncd order.

¶40

l'er c'ctrttra. lcarned counsel lor thc respondcnts, uhilc supporting the impugned order, submits that the petitioner can cxhibit thc merlos arrd the bank statements by placing rcliance on Scction l:16 ol' thc Act and that the petitioncr failed to provc tlle advanccrnent of amounts by way of cheques to late Vemuri Vcnkatesrvar Rao and leamed counsel prayed to dismiss the Ie\ rsl0n

¶41

A perusal of the record would disclose that thc petitioner was cxamined as P.W.l and he filed I.A.No.l04 ol 2019 earlier fbr the- purposc ol' marking his bank statcment and said application

¶42

\rt-s tll()\ed <'n l-r:.()-l {il9 Ilr,., 1.1-....,111 uIrl.|i.,i.i.r i. lllr-tl lir sLlrllnroI tlte Ii rrtl< ]arIruer. l r tl," ,.,u,.,.,,,ru trl nr,tr<irg hc lrarrk trarsacti.rs. IIo',lcrer. Sccti., l-r(r oi tlrc Acr ,lirr(l.rtc: tlrat tlrc ('ourt slrall c r pr',rductiort r1' l.lrli 5 sliI ol n.rtnro hL,in-l thcrcon the olflcial n alk dcnotinq that tlrc chequc has br'r,n clish,rnour.ctl presuntc tlic 1 rct ofdishonour ol'such checlue, unles, rrd Lr rtil such Iact is dispro. erl. Thc rr-ial ('orrlt had r.iehtlr. lreld []rt irr r ies o1 the presurnpt on pro\ iclcci untlcr. Section l-16 ot' il I ls It^()t nccessal/ to 1,11yy,' thc suntc oni.c again b1, sunturr,ni.trt rlte Bank l{ana_eer H< u cr er. It thc l'act: und circuntst,rnccs. [.r' ullou.inu the appltcatio r o sulnllon the Ilenk Manager 1irr. the purpose ol giving his evi lence in rcspect ol' the bank transactio-rsr. including the bank stater tcltts, it riould nol in an,\,ay cal sc 1::.rjr dice to thc case of the es.pondents and al'lbldin-q an opportrr: ity to thc petitioncr to e rarnine thc Ilar-rk i{anager on his beli rll' as I).W.1 would be appr(,priate in thc intercsL ofjusricc.

¶43

For thc olcgoinq tcasons. I a u-r of the r..icrr, thit r.he crder ol' thc trial (loun sul'l-ers tior, inlir,tit1.. \.a,.antirs rrrtt:r.lbrc rce br

¶44

¶45

I I

¶46

('oult irr crcrci:r,. ol'porrc'r-s unricr Ar.ticlc ll7 ol the ClonstitLrtion

¶47

o1-lndia

¶48

In thc rt'sult, thc civil rc,",ision petition is alloi,r,cd. 1.hc inrpugned ordcr darcd I5.04.2019 in LA.No.20gI ol 20 lg in O.S.No. I00 of 20 14, on rhe file of the Special Sessions Judge tbr -['rial ol cases under SCs and S'l's (pOA) Act-cum-VII Additional

¶49

[)istlict and Sessions Judgc, Khamrnarn, is hereby set aside. Conscqucntll , 1.A.No.208 I ol 2018 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

t) Pending rnisceIlancous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO FICER

To,

The.Spl. Sessrons Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/Sts (pOA) Act-cumVll Additional District Judge, Khammam

¶56

One CC to Smt. U [ilA DEVI NAMA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to Sri KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate [OpUC]

¶58

Two CD Gopies

Njb

d{k

HIGH COIIRT

ASR,J

DATED:2t 10212023

ORDER

CRP.No.1,t89 of 2019

, . ,./..,
.4'
h-
/:1
ll
APlt ?0?l r<br>I {.)
t, ,/
: /lt -. -. - -.:.,: .:...'./

¶67

ALI-OWINC 1'H]⁽ IVIL REVISION PE TIl'ION

¶68

lb). /--.. ^
V..\P
,i\r'.${u

Tajawath Ramesh v. Vemuri Padma, and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tajawath Ramesh v. Vemuri Padma, and another

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

Karriarapu Sambasiva Rao Vs M/s.Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt.Ltd

Pinna Ramulu Vs Godugu Mallesham , Pinna Mallesham and another

Dantaluri Venkatapathi Raju Vs D.Rajeshwari Sirisha

N. Ravi Kiran Vs Smt. J. Vijaya Lakshmi

Bharat Fabricators, Hyd and Another Vs Shirish Dhopeshwarkar, Hyd and Twelve Others

Indusind Bank Ltd., Vs Sri. Puramshetty Shankar and Another