Allowed

Gouru Venkateshwarlu v. Tedla Laxmaiah

Telangana HC20 Jan 2023CRP/3073/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court exercised its superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside an impugned order dismissing a recall petition. The Court ordered the re-calling of witnesses for further cross-examination to enable complete justice, imposing costs on the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; I.A. No.366 of 2022 allowed; PWs 1 and 2 recalled for further cross-examination on payment of Rs.1,000/- costs.

Gouru Venkateshwarlu Vs Tedla Laxmaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD ,"

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3073 OF 2022

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Order dated 01.12.2022 made in 1.A.No.366 of 2022 in O.S.No.123 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gouru Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Vishwanadham, Aged 63 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No 5-86, Shabu Nagar Locality, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District

¶10

,..PETITIONER/PETITINERYDEFENDANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Tedla Laxmaiah, S/o. Seethaiah, Aged 72 years, Occ. Business RJo. H No 11-38 Seetharampuram,, Miryalguda Town and Nalgonda District

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶14

lA NO:^'t OF 2022

¶15

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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S No 123 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda pending Civil Revision Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. P.PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent : SMT ANNAPURNA SREERAM

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶20

CwIL REVISION PETITION No.3O73 of 2022

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / defendant and Smt.Annapurna Sreerarn, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff. Perused the record.

¶23

Respondent herein had filed a suit vide O.S.No.123 of 2016 against petitioner herein seeking recovery of money basing on a promissory-note. Petitioner herein had hled written statement specifically contending that he has repaid the entire amount to the respondent herein under the suit promissory-notes and also other promissory-notes, which the plaintiff and his wife by name Smt.Tedla Sunanda, filed vide O.S.Nos.144 and 129 of 20 16 respectively. Plaintiff also passed a receipt dated 22-03-2016 in favour of defendants stating that the plaintiff received an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- from the defendant towards total due amount and passed a receipt

¶24

¶25

in favour of defendant. The sarne may be marked as document. There ale some dues towards interest portion to the plaintiff by defendant. With regard to the said interest portion also, the defendant has paid entire interest upto 09-08-20i6 along with shop rent of Rs.S,OOO/- per month. According to him, plaintiff also passed receipts to the said effect.

¶26

Plaintiff was examined as PW- 1 and he was crossexamined on O2-ll-2OIB. Thereafter petitioner/ defendant had filed I.A.No.366 of 2022 to recall PWs.¹ and 2 on the ground that earlier counsel of the petitioner did not frle original receipt dated 22-03-2016 in the Court along with written statement though it is mentioned that the same is hled along with written statement. He has kept the aforesaid receipt with him in the file itselL Thereafter he has returned the said receipt along with bundle while giving no objection.

¶27

¶28

It is further contended that earlier counsei did not cross-examine PWs. I and 2 with regard to the aJoresaid aspects including receipt. Therefore, on the said grounds petitioner sought to re-call PW- I (plaintiff) and PW-2 (attestor to the promissory-note) for the purpose of further cross-exarnination. The said petition was opposed on the ground that the petitioner herein did not mention proper reasons to re-call PWs.l and 2 and he has filed the present application after lapse of 4 years.

¶29

The Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to explain the reason for re-call of PWs.1 and 2 and party could not briefed his counsel is not a ground for recalling witness for further cross-examination. In absence of any inconsistencies or any cogent reason, it is opined that the petitioner carne up with this application only to drag the matter.

¶30

¶31

¶32

Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the earlier counsel has returned the said receipt dated 22-03-2016 to the^petitioner and the said receipt^was handed over to the^present counsel of the^petitioner herein. Therefore, further cross-exarnination of PWs.l and 2 on the said aspect of repayment of entire amount covered under promissory-note is necessary.

¶33

Whereas, Smt.Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that even in the present Revision Petition petitioner did not fiie copy of the said receipt. He has paid rent and respondent has issued receipt.

¶34

As discussed supra, there is specific assertion in the written statement filed by defendant that he has repaid the entire amount covered under promissory-note and a receipt dated 22-03-2016 was issued by the plaintiff to the said e$ect.^Though it is mentioned that the receipt is

¶35

¶36

fiied along with written statement, according to the petitioner, the same was not Iiled by his earlier counsel. However, his earlier counsel has now returned the said receipt to the petitioner and he has handed over it to the present counsel.

¶37

Despite the said facts and assertions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the Court below did not cross-exarnine both PWs. 1 and 2 to the said effect. Thus, it appears there is lapse on the part of the earlier counsel of the petitioner for which the petitioner should not be suffered. The said aspects were not considered by the Court below in the impugned order. Considering the said assertions in the written statement and also considering the submissions made by Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the receipt 1S available, this Court is inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein to do complete justice to the parties by invoking

¶38

¶39

¶40

supedntendence^jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶41

Suit is of the year 2076. Impugned order is Ol-12-2O22. Both learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the suit is posted to today for cross-examination of DW-1. Therefore, the impugned order dated Ol-12-2O22 in I.A.No.366 of 2022 1n O.S.No. 123 of 2016 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalguda is set aside. I.A.No.366 of 2022 is a-llowed. PWs. 1 and 2 are re-called on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), payable to the plaintiff in O.S.No.l23 of 20 16. Court below shall recall both PWs. I and 2 for further cross-examination and on recall petitioner shall complete cross-exalnination of AS PWs- 1 and 2 without seeking adjournment, expeditiously S possible, preferably within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both petitioner and respondent shall co-operate with the trial

¶42

¶43

¶44

Court in disposal of suit vide O.S.No.L23 of 2016 and learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda shall make an endeavour to dispose of the said suit, in accordance with

¶45

1aw, AS expeditiously AS possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. With costs.

¶47

As a sequei, the miscelianeous petitions, if any,

¶48

pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

To,

,TRUE COPY//

Sd/- A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT-REGISTRARL-[)/

¶53

SECTI'ON OFFICER

¶54

1 The Senior Civil Judge at tvliryalaguda, Nalgonda District 2 One CC to Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy ,Advocate (OPUC)

¶55

3 One CC to Smt Annapurna Sreeram ,Advocate (OPUC)

¶56

4 Two CD Copies

PR *#ks

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010112023

ORDER

CRP.No.3073 ot 2022

.( t'i g s rAI{.
<br>1 6 tiB ?lt-l
:,/

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE C.R.P WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

Gouru Venkateshwarlu v. Tedla Laxmaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gouru Venkateshwarlu v. Tedla Laxmaiah

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

Mr. Ameen Alladin Vs The General Officer

Raos Educational Cultural Welfare Society Vs National Council for the Teacher Education

Ashok Chand Kapoor and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Jangili Sattaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Gouru Venkateshwarlu Vs Tedla Laxmaiah

Gouru Venkateshwarlu Vs Tedla Sunanda