Allowed

Gouru Venkateshwarlu v. Tedla Sunanda

Telangana HC20 Jan 2023CRP/3085/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court allowed the appeal to recall witnesses for cross-examination regarding repayment of loan. The Court set aside the lower court's order dismissing the request and directed the lower court to complete cross-examination within a week and dispose of the suit within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order in I.A.No.332 of 2022 set aside; I.A.No.332 of 2022 allowed; witnesses recalled for payment of fees; petitioner permitted to cross-examine witnesses within one week.

Gouru Venkateshwarlu Vs Tedla Sunanda — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2023)

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

I i

Iil

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶10

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

¶11

PRESENT

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶13

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3085 OF 2022

¶14

Petition under Afticle 227 of Constitution of lndia, againsV aggrieved by the Order dated 0111212022 passed in lA No.332 of 2022 in OS No.129 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Miryalaguda.

¶15

Between:

¶16

Gouru Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Vishwanadham, F!/o. H.No.5-86, Shabu Nagar Locality, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶17

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ DEFENDANT

¶18

AND

¶19

Tedla Sunanda, W/o. Laxmaiah, R:/o. No.11-38, Seetharampuram, Miryalguda Town and Nalgonda District.

¶20

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.129 of 20 16 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, pending Civil Revision Petition.

¶23

For the Petitioner : SRI P.PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate

¶24

For the Respondent : SMT ANNAPURNA SREERAM, Advocate

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HO {'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHNIA,N CTVIL 1EVISION PETITION No.3O85 of^'.20:22

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, leanred counsel appearing for the petitioner / defe tdant and Smt.Annapu rna Sreeram, learned counsel ap4rearing for the respondr nt / plaintifL Perused the rr'cord

¶29

ResponCent herein had filed a suit vide^().S.No.129 of 2016 ag: rinst petitioner herein seeking recovery of money basi:rg on a promissory note. Petitioner herein had filed written statement specifically contt:nding that he has repai I the entire amount to the r()sl)otrrient herein under the suit promissory-notes an<l also other promissory-rrotes, which the plaintiff ;rnd trjs wife by name Smt.'ledla Sunanda, filed vide^{().S.lttts.144} and 123 of 20 16 respectively. Plaintilf also pass:<l a receipt dated22-03.20 16 in favour oldefendants sta,rng that the plaintiff rece iveci an amount o[ Rs. 11,0o,00(, /- fr-om the defendaitto wards total due amount and pas:;ed a receipt

¶30

¶31

AS in favour of defendant. The sarne may be^marked document. There are some dues towards interest^portion to the plaintiff by defendant. With regard to the said interest portion also, the defendalt has paid entire interest upto 09-08-20 16 along with shop rent^of Rs.S,OOO/- per month. According to him,^{plaintiffalso} passed receipts to the said effect.

¶32

Plaintiff was examined as PW-l and he^{was cross-} examined on 02-ll-2O18. Thereafter^petitioner/ defendant had fiied I.A.No.332 of^{2022 to recall PWs.1} and 2 on the ground that earlier^{counsel of the petitioner} did not {ile original reccipt^dated 22-03-2016^{in the Court} along with rvritten statement though it^{was mentioned} that the same is filed along^{with written statement. He} has kept thc aloresaid receipt^{with him in the llle itself.} Thereafter he has returned the said^{receipt along with} bundle while giving no objection.

¶33

¶34

It is furLher contended that earlier courrsel did not cross-examin I PWs. 1 and 2 with regard to ttLe aforesaid aspects inclu ling receipt. Therefore, on the sirid grounds petitioner so rght to re-call pW- I (plaintiff) and pW_2 (attestor to the promissory-note) for the rlrrpose of further cross- examination. The said petition wzrs opposed on the grounrI that the petitioner herein did nor. rrLention proper reasor.s to re-call PWs. 1 and 2 and ht: has filed the present a1 rplication after lapse of 4 years.

¶35

The Court below dismissed the said applir:ation on the ground th rt the petitioner herein failed to ,:r-plain the reason for re.call of pWs. 1 and, 2 and party < ould not brief his coun sel is not a ground for recalling ,rritn<:ss for further cross -examination. In the absenc: of any inconsistencie I or any cogent reason, it is opinr:cl tbzLt the petitioner carn e up with the said application only to drag the matter.

¶36

¶37

Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the eadier counsel has returned the said receipt dated 22-03-2016 to the petitioner along with no objection and the said receipt was handed over to the present counsel of the petitioner herein. Therefore, lurther crossexamination of PWs. 1 and 2 on the said aspect of repayment of entire amount covered under promissorynote is necessary.

¶38

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

¶39

As discussed supra, there is specilic pleading in the written statement liled by delendant that he has repaid the entire amount covered under promissory-note and a receipt dated 22-03 2016 was issued by the plaintiff to

¶40

¶41

i I !

¶42

the said effe:t.^{Thoughit was mentionedthat the receipt} was filed al^{,ng with written statement, acccrdingto the} petitioner, tl re same^{was not filed by his earli':r counsel'} However, hi; earlier^{counselhas now retur:redthe said} receipt to tf:e^{petitioner and he has handed lver it to the} present cou lsel.

¶43

Despit: the said^{facts and assertions,learned} counsel apl,earing^{for the petitioner in the ()ourtbelow} did not cross-exarnine^{both PWs'1 and 2 to thr: said effect} on the said aspects.^{Thus, it appears there is; lapseon the} part of the :arlier counsel^{of the petitioner ilr} "r'hich^the petitioner c annot be^{suffered. The said asprl('ts were not} considered by the^{Court below in the impugned order'} Considerinll the said^{pleading in the writtenstatement}

¶44

and also considering^{thesubmission snrade by} Sri P. Pral^{,hakarReddy,learned coutrsel appearingfor} the petitior,er, that^{the receipt is available, this Courtis} inclined to give an^{opportunity to the petitirlner herein to} cross-exarr ine PWs. I^{and 2 to do complete} .iustice^{to the}

¶45

¶46

parties by invoking supervisory^jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶47

Suit is of the year 2016. 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 Ot-12-2O22 in^{I.A.No.332of2022 in} O.S.No. 129 of 2O16 passed by learned^{Senior Civil Judge} at Miryalguda is set aside. I.A.No.332^{of 2022 is allowed.} 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.L29 of 20 16. Court below shall^recall both PWs. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination^{and on} such recall, petitioner shall complete^{cross-examination} of PWs-l and 2 without seeking^{adjournment,as} expeditiously as possible,^{preferably within one week} from the date of receipt ol a copy^{of this order.Both} petitioner and respondent shall co-operate^{with the trial}

¶48

¶49

¶50

Court in disposal of suit vide O.S.No.129 cl' 2C16 and learncd Sen.or Civil Judge, Mirya-lguda sheJl n:.ake an endeavour tc dispose of the said suit, in acccrr.larrce with larv, ?IS exp:ditiously AS possible, preferably' u'ithin a periocl ol three (3) months from the dale of rr:ceipt of a copy ol this c rder.

¶51

Accordi rgly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. With costs.

¶52

As a s:quel, the miscellaneous petitiorrs, il any, pcr-rding in tte Civil Revision Petition shall starrrl closed.

¶53

Sd/-P.PAD VIANABHA REDDY ASSISIANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

, .Ir

SE]TICN OFFICER

The Senior Civil Judge, at Miryalaguda. .)1 One CC to Sri F Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Smt \nnapurna Sreeram, Advocate IOPUC] 4 Two CD Copies

fj d

i I I I

HIGH COt'RT

DATED:20/01/2023

z:.
6 STA;I q
/
,1
t'

¶64

ORDER

¶65

CRP.No.3085 of 202i

¶66

ALLOWING THE CRI ' WI'I-H COSTS.

¶67

A
(
1
,lc

Gouru Venkateshwarlu v. Tedla Sunanda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gouru Venkateshwarlu v. Tedla Sunanda

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

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 Laxmaiah