Disposed

Thota Gangadhar v. Thatikonda Vijaya

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023CRP/2184/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed off a Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the trial court's order refusing an immediate stay or immediate sending of documents for comparison. The Court held no error was committed as the request was not a refusal but a deemed direction to await evidence deposition.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of; requests for immediate stay or comparison sent to maintain pending till evidence is adduced.

Thota Gangadhar Vs Thatikonda Vijaya — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2184 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 15-06-2023 made in l.A. No.68 of 2023 in O.S No.29 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at. Jagtial.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Thota Gangadhar, S/o. Lingaiah, Occ. Business, Rt/o. H.No.1-3-12511 , Korutla, Jagtial District.

¶10

AND

¶11

...Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶12

Thatikonda Vijaya, Wo. Purushotham, Ryo.4-1-64, Korutla, Jagtial District.
I
a ..RespondenUDefendant
i

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶14

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed an support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S No. 29 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Jagtial, pending disposal of the C.R.P.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. K P VIJAY KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: R MADHAVI LATHA

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

Tl E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.:;UREi\IDER

¶19

c vtl REVtstoN^pETtTtoN No.2t 8.l oF i1023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Civil Revision Petition is directed un ler Art :le 227 oI lhe Constitulion o lndio to set oside the order dote:d l!;.06.2023 in l.A.No.6B ol 2)23 in O.S.No.29 of 2015 poss?d b'l the, leorned I Additionol Distr c1 ond Sessions Judge ot Jogtiol.

¶22

Heord le,rrned counsel for the petiiioner ond le,trn:d counsel for the respond :rrl. Perused lhe record.

¶23

The petitirrrer who is the plointiff is oggri,;ved b'u tl er order of the Ieorned I Acldilionol Dislricl ond Sessions Judge ot Jogliol in refusing to sen<l the documents for comporison to hr: hondwriling expert for opinic,n The reosoning given by lhe leornecl Sess ons Judge is thot lhe conlenlion of the petitioner - ploinlitf woulcl b() decided ofler going thr,;ugh lhe evidence of wilnessr:s in respe cl of lhe ogreemenl of sc le ond receipt executed by lhe rlefenCrrnt

¶24

Leorned c or-,nsel oppeoring for the petilic,ner - 6:loirrliff would submil thot lhe:ignotures ond thumb impression: of the es1>ondent - defendonl on lh --^,:greemenl of sole were disputed. fo-vrhi<;h reoson, the documenls l-ove to be sent to on experl for c:mpcrison

¶25

CRP No.2184 2023

¶26

¶27

On the other hond, leorned counsel oppeoring for lhe respondent - defendoni would submit thol the triol Court hos not refused 1o send the documents, however, the triol Court deemed il oppropriote not to ollow ihe opplicolion ot this^junclure.

¶28

A perusol of the order, lhe triol Court hos nol refused lo send the documenls but deemed it oppropriote lo send the some ofler odducing evidence. Therefore, ldo not find ony error in the order possed by the leorned Sessions Judge, when the proyer for sending lhe documents lo on expert is not refused. However, in lhe evenl of pelitioner filing on opplicoiion 1o send lhe documents lo lhe hondwriling experl for comporison ofler the evidence is odduced os sloted by lhe leorned Sessions Judge, the lriol Court sholl consider lhe some on the bosis of the evidence ploced on record.

¶29

Wilh the obove observotions. the Civil Revision Petition is

¶30

disposed off

¶31

Miscelloneous oppligotions pending, if ony. :holl slond closed.

¶32

Sd/.P.CH NAGABHUSHA MBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' @

¶33

SECTION OFFICER

¶34

To,

¶35

The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at. Jagtial 2. One CC to Sri K P VIJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri R MADHAVI LATHA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

¶36

SP
ANV &N A

¶37

HIGH COUR]' :"., t ,i DATE o:bgtosr/zoza

¶38

ORDER CRP.No.2 184 <>f 202it

¶39

-i ,:
Av A)
4
ry i<br>F ir..'
t'!,il'
')-t//
CH ',$

¶40

C R P I S D ISP l S E D o F

¶41

Thota Gangadhar v. Thatikonda Vijaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Gangadhar v. Thatikonda Vijaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaidehi , Devamma and Another Vs the State of Telangana, Rep by P.P and Another

G.Shankar Rao Vs the State of Telangana and Another

A. Parusha Ramudu Alias a. Ramudu, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Khaleel , Mota Khaleel Vs Shamsha Dhanani and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

R. Jaya Kumar, Karnataka State Vs the State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

G.Surender Yadav, Erragadda Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another