Dismissed

K. Sridhar v. Gone Sudershan Reddy

Telangana HC24 Feb 2023CRP/2943/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application for summoning the original property record. The Court held that the petitioner failed to obtain certified copies diligently over 10 years and the trial court correctly refused the application under Civil Rules of Practice Rule 129, though the petitioner remains free to file certified copies later.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to obtain certified copies and file them before the trial court later.

K. Sridhar Vs Gone Sudershan Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2943 OF 2022

¶6

Petition under ArLicle 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 10.11.2022^passed in 1.A.No.433 oI 2022 in O.S.No.1587 ol 2012 on thefileof the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Warangal.

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Sridhar, S/o.Komuraiah, aged about 48 yrs, Occ. Employee, R/o.H.No.236-26314, New Shayampet, Hanamkonda, Warangal. ...PETITIONERYDEFENDANT NO.2

¶9

AND

¶10

Gone Sudershan Reddy, S/o.l/alla Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.1 1 -24-53, [,4arri Venkataiah Colony, Road No.3, Near Pochamma Maidan, Warangal. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶11

P.Narsaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, aged 50 years, Occ. Labour, R/o.Ramannapet, Warangal -506 002

¶12

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT NO.1

¶13

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶14

etition,underSectionj 51 of 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 final hearing in the suit O.S.No.1587 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum -Jud icial Magistrate of First Class Warangal end ingd isposa l-of€ivi FRevisiortPetitio

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M. RAMAKANTH

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : Sri MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : None appeared

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

I'IIE I{ON'BLI| SRI JT]STICE A. AI}IITSH[]K I{EDI)Y CML REVISION PETITION No.2943 of 2022

¶20

OI{DE,II:

¶21

Challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, in I.A.No.433 of 2022 in O.S.No.1587 of 2012, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the trial Court without taking into consideration the fact that as the petitioner is not a party to the proceedir-rgs before the Tahsildar who has issued 13-A certificate, he wanted to summon the original record pertaining to the suit schedule property from the Office of'fahsildar, but has erroneously passed the order urrder revision dated 10.11.2022 dismissing the I.A.No.433 of 2022 ltled by the petitioner. The leamed counsel has stated that the reason given by the trial Court that the said I.A. has

¶23

¶24

been filcd only to drag on the matter is rnisconceived and contrary to the record. The learned counsel has stated that if the petitioner wants to obtain necessary documents, he has to obtain the same by filing an application before tl.re Office of Tahsildar for certified copies. This will take considerable tirne, as such, in order to save the time, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.433 of 2022 but the trial Courl has wrongly passed the order under revision dated I 0.1 I .2022.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.l has stated that the petitioner has not bothered to obtain the certified copies of the subject documents even though the suit is of the year 2012, moreover, the petitioner has not stated anything in the affidavit filed by him with regard to the document, which is sought to be marked, but, has called for the entire record which is not permissible, therefore, he has prayed this Court to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶26

,dLii. J C.R.P \o 29.1i1 of 2022

¶27

¶28

A perusal of the order under revisior.r dated 10.11.2022 in I.A.No.43l of 2022 in O.S.No.1587 of 2022 shows that the trial Court duly taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has not taken any steps to obtain the certified copies lras straight away filed the present I.A.No.433 of 2022 to call fbr the original recold which is impermissible under tlie law, rnore specifically, in view of the Rule 129(2) and (3) of thc Ciril Rules of Practice and also the fact that the petitioner has kept quiet fbr a period often (10) years and only at the fag end of the trial, the petitioner has filed the present I.A.No.433 of 2022.

¶29

When queried by this Court as to why the petitioner has not tried to obtain certified copies from the office of the Tahsildar, the petitioner has stated that the same would take considerable tirne, which may delay the disposal of the suit. The learned counsel has stated that the petitioner may be

¶30

\ \i.' I i. if l'1.i,,2rr ll ,r 2i)-/,2

¶31

¶32

pennitted to obtain thc certified copies and present the santc befbre the trial Couft for getting them marked.

¶33

Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2012. F-or the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not tried to obtain the documents which he wants to mark for the last nrore than 10 years. Moreover, the document which is sought to be markcd pertains to the year 2003. Ifthe petitioner was diligent cnough, hc could have obtained the same immediately,alter the suit is filed and filed the same before the trial Court. This Courl does not find any reason to interfere with the order under revision dated 10.1 1.2022.

¶34

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Pctition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is free to obtain the certified copies and file the same before the trial Court. On filing the documents, the trial Court shall take them on record subject to proof and relevancy and other objections that may be taken by the other side. Any I.A. filed for taking on record

¶35

!,\ ir (. R l) . 2.1 ; I ot -2|.t.2

¶36

¶37

the certilled copy or for aclducing evidence shall be dealt with by the triai Lourt or-r its own merits without reference to the

¶38

ordcr rrnder rq,ision dated I 0.11.2022.

¶39

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha[[ stand

¶40

closed. Thcre shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGIST

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

¶46

One CC to Sri M. RAMAKANTH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

One CC to Sri MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

Two CD Copies

njb .- (/

HIGH COURT

AAR,J

DATED:2410212023

ORDER

1$ e srArs
(
ilt\n ?'il?3 (: 7
d 1r
.)>
* z1<br>

¶55

CRP.No.2943 of 2022

¶56

DISMISSING TH[]^('IVIL RIyISION PETITION.

¶57

<br><)
c

K. Sridhar v. Gone Sudershan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sridhar v. Gone Sudershan Reddy

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

Ramadevi Vs Dr.Rajat Kumar and 5 Others

Golla Venkataramulu Vs Dr. Rajat Kumar

N.Amani Reddy Vs Sri S.Harish

Sri. B. Gyaneshwar Vs Sri M. Hanumantha Rao

Sri Narsagalla Krishna Vs Mr. Sharath and 3 others

T.S. Veera Narayana, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation