Allowed

Gouru Venkateshwarlu v. Tedla Laxmaiah

Telangana HC20 Jan 2023CRP/3087/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Civil Revision Petitioner sought to recall witnesses for further cross-examination regarding a receipt for full repayment despite a lapse of four years. The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 01-12-2022 in I.A.No.333 of 2022 was set aside. The application was allowed, witnesses were re-called subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiff, and the peti

Gouru Venkateshwarlu Vs Tedla Laxmaiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

I : i

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3087 OF 2022

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order 01-12-2022 in 1.A.No.333 of 2022 in O.S.No.144 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda.

¶9

Between:

¶10

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

¶11

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT

¶12

AND

¶13

Tedla Laxmaiah, S/o. Seethaiah, aged 72 years, Occ. Business, FVo. H.No.1 1-38, Seetharampuram, Miryalguda Town and Nalgonda District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 151 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.144 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, pending Civil Revision Petition and pass such other order or orders as deems fit and proper.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.ANNAPURNA SREERAM

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HO]I'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHIVLA.N ryu^{IEVISION PETITION} No. 3087 ol20'22

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learrred counsel appearing br the petitioner / defenctant and Smt.Annapur na Sreeram, learned Counsel a.tpearing for the responde et / plaintiff. Perused the record

¶23

Respon<tent herein had filed a suit vide O.S.No. 144 of 2016 agalnst petitioner herein seeking r:r:covery of money basing on a promissory-note. petiti,trrer herein had filed wrilten statement specifically cont:nding that he has repaic the entire amount to the respor: <ient herein under the suit promissory-notes and etlso other promissory-n,)tes, which the plaintiff and lris wife by name Smt.Trdla Sunanda, filed vide O.S.Nts. 1123 and 129 of 20 16 respectively. plaintiff also passe<l a receipt dated 22-03-2 O16 in favour of defendants stat ng that the plaintiff recei.,ed an amount of Rs. 11,O0,000,/- from the defel.r(ant to'"r ards total due amount and pass,:ri a receipt

¶24

¶25

¶26

in favour of defendant. The sarne may be marked as document. There are 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 09-08-2016 along with shop rent of Rs.S,OOO/- per month. According to him, plaintiff also passed receipts to the said effect.

¶27

Plaintiff was examined as PW- 1 and he was crossexamined on 02-lI-2C18. Thereafter petitioner/ defendant had filed I.A.No.333 of 2022 to recall pWs. 1 and 2 on the ground that earlier counsel of the petitioner did not file original receipt dated 22-03-2016 in the Court along with written statement though it was mentioned that the same is filed along with written statement. He has kept the aforesaid receipt with him in the lile itself. Thereafter he has returned the said receipt a-long with bundle while giving no objection.

¶28

¶29

It is fu^'ther contended that earlier couttsel did not cross-examir Le PWs.l and 2 with regarcl to 1h: aforesaid aspects inchrding receipt. Therefore, on the ri,zrid grounds petitioner sought to re-ca-ll PW-1 (plaintifl) and PW-2 (attestor to thc promissory-note) for the l.lurpose of further cross -examination. The said petition urrrs opposed on the grour Ld that the petitioner herein did not mention proper reasc ns to re-call PWs. 1 and 2 and l:,e has filed the present r.pplication after lapse of 4 yeals.

¶30

The Co-rrt below dismissed the said a1r'prlicietion on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to r:xplain the reason for r:-call of PWs. 1 and 2 and par.-'y could not brief his counsel is not a ground for recallin;3 witness for further cro ;s-examination. In the zrbserLce of any inconsistenc.es or any cogent reason, it is op;rred that the petitioner ca3re up with the said application ,tnly to drag the matter.

¶31

¶32

Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the ea-rlier 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, further crossexamination of PWs. 1 and 2 on the said aspect of repayment of entire amount covered under promissorynote 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 file copy of the said receipt. He has paid rent and respondent has issued receipt.

¶34

As discussed. supra, there is specific pleading in the written statement hled 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

¶35

¶36

the said effecl . Though it was mentioned thrrt the receipt was filed alrng with written statement, according to the petitioner, tl re same was not filed by his ea'tier counsel. However, hi; earlier counsel has now returnr:d the said receipt to th: petitioner and he has handed :rver it to the present cour rsel.

¶37

Despitr the said facts and assertions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the^tllourt below did not crosr;-examine both PWs.1 and 2 to t.,'r,, surid effect on the said rLspects. Thus, it appears there is lapse on the part of the r arlier counsel of the petitioner f c,; which the petitioncr cz nnot be suffered. The said asp€ols^,,vere not considered lry the Court below in the impug;ned order. Considering the said pleadings in the writtr:n statement and also ccnsidering the submissions ma<le: by Sri P Prabhakar tcddy, learned counsel appea'ing for the petitione r, t rat the receipt 1S availabie, tlris Court is inclined to gLve an opportunity to the petitioncr herein to cross-examirre PWs. 1 and 2 to do complete jrl;tice to the

¶38

¶39

¶40

pafiies by invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶41

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 01-12-2022 in I.A.No.333 of 2022 1n O.S.No.144 of 2016 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalguda is set aside. I.A.No.333 of 2022 is allowed. PWs.1 and 2 are re-called on payment of costs of Rs. 1,00O/- (Rupees one thousand only), payable to the plaintiff in O.S.No. l44 of 2016. Court below shall recall both PWs. I and 2 for further cross-examination and on such recall, petitioner shall complete cross-examination of PWs-1 and 2 without seeking adjournment, AS expeditiously AS possible, preferably within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both petitioner and respondent sha,ll co-operate with the tria-l

¶42

¶43

¶44

Court in discosal of suit vide O.S.No.144 c,:. 2Ct76 and learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda shz,.l rrrake an endeavour to dispose of the said suit, in accc r,:lance with law, AS expr:ditiously AS possible, preferabll, u.ithin a period of thr:e (3) months from the date of r::ceipt of a copy of this o rcler.

¶45

AccordirLgly, the Civil Revision Petition js allowed. With costs.

¶46

As a sr quel, the miscellaneous petitic,rr,s, if any, pending in th: Civil Revision Petition sha-ll staetl closed.

¶47

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

SD/-I,.P,AD [I,\N/\BHA R DY ,\S:llS'l'.r\N'l' REGIS RAR :;TCTION FICER

¶50

To,

¶51

The Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda.

¶52

One CC to Sri F. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

One CC to Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2010112023

ORDER

sr..lrF
rl
rt
- rf'li
.) il1 It t! r',, '
:)
):,
:r -t:" F

¶59

CRP.No.3087 ol 2022

¶60

Allar,ix6

¶61

DEPSS+NG @Y THE IiRP WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

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

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 Sunanda