Allowed

Mala pippera Sayanna v. G.V. Narsareddy

Telangana HC21 Apr 2023CRP/23/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging an order dismissing an application for additional evidence filed independently of the main appeal. The Court held such a disposal unsustainable and remanded the matter.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition allowed; the impugned order dated 02.02.2022 set aside; matter remanded to Principal District Judge, Nirmal for re-appreciation.

Mala pippera Sayanna Vs G.V. Narsareddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY^OF APRIL

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 23 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the orders dL.211212022 in |.A.No.193i2021 in A.S.No 11412018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, NIRMAL.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mala pippera Sayanna, S/o. Sayanna, Aged about 73 years, Occ- Agriculture, Rl/o. Narsapur- G(vg) Mandal Dilwarpur, Nirmal district.

¶10

...PEflilONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

G.V. Narsareddy, S/o. Narayan Reddy, Aged 73 years, Occ- Agriculture, Ri./o. Narsapur- G(vg) Mandal Dilwarpur, Nirmal district.

¶13

Smt. G.V.Sumathi Reddy, Wo. Narsa Reddy, Aged about 68 years, OccHouse wife, Fl/o. Narsapur-G(vg) Mandal Dilriirarpur, Nirmal district.

¶14

G.V.Anikumar Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy, Aged about 49^years, OccContractor, FUo. Narsapur- G(vg) Mandal Dilwarpur, Nirmal district.

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to^grant stay of the order passed by Prl District Judge, Nirmal in l.A.No.'|93 of 2021, A.S. No. 1 1 4 ot 201 I dated O2l 1212022,^pending disposal of the CRP.

¶18

¶19

! i I I I I

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner ;SRI. NARAYANA N Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. JAGANMOHAN REDDY

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.23 of 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri N. Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

This civil revision petition is hled against the order, dated 02.12.2022, passed in I.A.No.193 of 2O2l in A.S.No.114 of 2018, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nirmal. The said apptication was f-rled under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to direct the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dilawarpur Mandal, to appear before the Court to give additional evidence along with the entire records pertaining to Proc.Nos.ROR /28/a9, dated 10.11.1998, covered by Ex.A1 Proc.No.B/ 1495 I 2OO5, dated 3 1.05.2004.

¶27

The said application was construed as an application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. by the lower appellate Court and the sarne was dismissed by order d,ated 02.L2.2O22, on the ground that the ingredients, as required under Rule 27 Order XLI C.P.C., are not satisfied. If the application in question is to be construed under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., the same is

¶28

¶29

required to bc decided along i(,ith the main appeal, but under no circumstanccs, the same can bc disposed of independenlly and the same is required to be considered along with the^rnain appeal.

¶30

ln this regard, the iaw is well settled and the^{Flon'Lrlc Apex} Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim^{Uddinand Anothert held} as under:

¶31

"52 Thus, from tl.tc above, it is crystal clear that applicalion for taking additional evidencc^{on record at} arr appellate stage, even if Iiled during thc^{pendency of} the a.ppeal, is to be heard at the time of^{frral hearing of} the appeal at a stagc when after^{appreciatingthe} evidence on record, the court reaches^the conclusion that additional evidence^was required^{to be takenon} record in order to pronounce the^judgment or^{for alry} other substantial cause. In case, application^{for taking} additional evidence on record has been considered and a-llowed prior to the hearing of the appeal,^{the order} being a product of total and complete hon-applicaLion^of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to^be taken on record to pronounce the^judgrnent or^not, remains inconsequential/ inexecutable and^is liable^{to be} ignored."

¶32

In the circumstances, the order^passed by the^lower appellate Court disposing of the application^filed under^Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. independently while keeping the appeal

'1zorz;^{a scc ta8}

I \

I I

I I

{ d

pending is totally unsustainable and the same is required to be decided along with the main appeal.

¶40

However, from the perusal of the relief that is sought in the application in question i.e., I.A.No. 193 ot 2021, it appears that the same is an application hled seeking production of the record from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dilawarpur Mandal, as an additional evidence.

¶41

Hence, the lower appellate Court is directed to re-appreciate the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon and in case, if the lower appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the said application is in effect as the one to adduce additional evidence, the same can be considered ald disposed of along with the main appeal. However, it is made clear tl'rat in case, if the lower appellate Court comes to the conclusion that this is an application' summoning the Mandal Revenue Off,rcer, Dilawarpur Mandal, the same can be considered separately and appropriate orders be passed accordingly.

¶42

In the light of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Principal District Judge, Nirmal, in

terms ol the obsen'ations made hereinabove. There shall be no

¶47

order as to costs

¶48

Miscellaneous applications, if any, filed in this civil

¶49

rcvision petition shall stand closed

¶50