Allowed

Doddipati Saraiah v. Vuppu Mallikarjun

Telangana HC25 Apr 2023CRP/481/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition setting aside the dismissal of an application to add a compact disc containing news telecast of a bus accident. The Court held that the initial admissibility of the CD subject to proof should be decided at the final hearing, not at the threshold.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 01.12.2022 dismissing I.A. No. 1516 of 2022 is set aside. The application allowing the compact disc on record, subject to proof and relevancy, is allowed.

Doddipati Saraiah Vs Vuppu Mallikarjun — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PET ION NO: 481 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 01.12-2022 passed in lA No. 1516/2022 in ltAV OP no. 989 of 201 7 on the file of Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda

¶8

Between

¶9

Doddipati Saraiah, S/o. Mallaiah Aged 54 years, Occ. Driver Rt/o. H No. 4-75, Ambala, Kamalapur, Warangal District

¶10

M/s. J.M.J. High School, Rep by its Principal / Correspondent S. Joseph Kumar Reddy, S/o Rajashekaraiah, Aged 43 years, Occ Principat, R/o. H no. 2-5-97 Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, now at H no.1-1-186/3/6 Prashanth nagar, Kazipet, Warangal

¶11

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

AND

¶13

Vuppu lvlallikarjun, S/o. Rajaveeraiah Aged 45 years, Occ. Employee,

¶14

Vuppu Manjula, Wo. Mallikarjun Aged 41 years, Occ. House hold

¶15

Both are Rl/o. H No.^'1 1-78, Parkal, Warangal District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HOf 'tll-E^{SRI JUSTICEA' ABHISHEK RI'D'DY} CIVII REVISION^{PETITION No.48lof 2 0;13}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Questic^{ring the order dated 01 .12.2022 pais'3dby the} learned Chai nrart. Motor^{AccidentsClaims TribunrLl-cum-} Principal D strict^{Judge,Hanumakonda,} ln rlisrnissing I.A.No.l 5 l6^{rf 2t)22 it1M.V.O.P.No.989of 2017, filed by the} petitioners/re ,pondcrrts^{fbr atlowing compactdisc (fcr short} C.D.) con:ris ing^{of' ncr'vs felccast on 18'0]'2017 abcut the} on death of^{ll,v r stltdents in an accidentthat toc'k place} 18.03.201, rt^{\akkalagutta, the present CililR'evision} Petition has^{Ie,:rt ll lccl}

¶23

Le arne I cotrnsel^{tbr the petitionershas stal:d that on} earlier occa: otr,^{in respcct ol the very same acr:'ide:nt, one} Bhukya R,:rt^{tka hiis tllcd M.V.O.P.No.549of 20 i',irt wl'rich'} 1n the pctition:r tiicrein^{had llled I.A'No.1825 ol1''021} N't,'.O.P.)(c 5-19 ol^{20 17. under Section 65-B of tlLe Evidence} Act, seekirrc^{t() acccl)t the C,D. containing the nerrs' telecaston} 18.03.2017^{rbtrrt the deatho1't[.re trvo studentsir lire accident} that took^{pl Lcc orl 18.0i.2017 at Nakkalagutta.I'he learned}

¶24

t t

¶25

¶26

AAR. J C.R.P.No a8I ot 2023

¶27

counsel has stated that the Court below had allowed the said I.A.No.l825 of 2021 and another I.A.No.l320 of Z02l in M.V.O.P.No.549 of 2017 vide common order dared 15.02.2022, but, the Court below has passed the order under revision dated 0l .12.2022 dismissing the present I.A.No. l5l6 of 2022 in M.V.O.p.No.9g9 of 2017, filed by the peritioners for similar relief. The learned counsel has further stated that C.D. contains the news telecast pertaining to the accident which took place on 18.03.2017 at Nakkalagutta and the said accident is the subject accident in both M.V.O.p.Nos.549 and 989 of 20 17. That the petitioners had sought to bring on record C.D. containing the news telecast of the accident that took place on 18.03.2017 at Nakkalagutta, but, the Court bclor.r vide order under revision dated 01.12.2022 has dismissed I.A.No.l516 of 2022 in M.V.O.p.No .9g9 of 20t7.

¶28

Even though the notices were served on the respondents,

¶29

there is no representation on their behalf. Therefore. thev are

set ex pclrte

3 LR.P No 481 of2023

{ I :

.\ per rsal of thc common order dated I5.0)..)022 passed by thc Cor rt below in I.A.Nos.1825 and 1321 of 2021 in M.V.O.P.N ,.549 of 2017 and also the order unrler revision dated 0l .I ' .2022 shou s that the accident tc ol< lllace on 18.03.2017 at Nakkalarlr,rtra and the peritiorx:rr had f-rled I.A.No.1E2: of 202 I undcr Section 65-B olthe E'zid,:nce Act seeking tr rccept tlie C.l). containing the nevrs telecast in various ropr tt('d ncrt's chattttcls ri'ith regarcl tg t tt: manner in which the a.:cident took place, rvhereas [.A.n\o.^i:i20 of 2021 seeking to i ccel)t the cnlistcd clocurnents^j.e., 3 l,hotographs along rvit'i l.[). shr)ri irr,, tlre scenc ot' accrdent arrd skidding marks arLd viclco lirotrcc tclecast in I' ;trowing the lnvestrgatlnl ofl'rccr revt-alir.rq thc trr,rtlr Thc Clot rt. below had allowed b,rtl thc said [ .A.Nos. t825 and 1320 of 2o21 vide its common or<:r datecl 15.02 l0l2 lt is to be note,l ihal for the similar relie t' i.c., to acccpt rhe C.D. corrtaininl: the news telecast vrith rcspect to thc 5lllllC accidcnt which to,.rk lllace on 18.03.2017 at Nakkalaggtta, tftc petitioners ha,l filed I.A.No.l 5 t6 ct'2022 in ,1 ' O P.No.989 of l0 17, but, the said I.A. canre lo bt: disntissed lrv the Court belorv vidr: r.rrdr:r under

¶35

AAR, J C.R.P.No.48l of 2023

¶36

¶37

revision dated 01.12.2022 mainly on the ground that the respondents have not taken any ground with regard to the alleged news telecast about the accident in their counter and therefore, the same is not relevant. The question as to whether the evidence i,e., C.D. containing the news telecast of the subject accident, is relevant or not has to be decided at the time of deciding the rnain case, but not at the threshold i.e., at the time of producing the said evidence. Moreover, in respect of the very same accident, M.V.O.P.No.549 of 2017 came to be filed and thc above said C.D. was already taken on record. Therefore, thc Court below ought to have allowed the present LA. also. It is settled principle of law that merely because the document is taken on record and marked through a witness, it cannot be said that the contents of the said document are proved. The marking of any document shall always be subject to its proof and relcvancy which will be gone into at the time of final hearing but not at the time of marking. Moreover, the C.D. is alrcady nrarked in another M.V.O.P. which is arising out of the vcr) sarne accident.

¶38

I I P No'181^{of 2023}

¶39

¶40

¶41

Havinl '^{regardto the above, the orcierurrd '-r revision} dated^{01.122022is set aside and I A'No'151('>f 2022is} allowed.^{l-h'(lourt bclowis directed to take the srrbjr:ct C'D'} on record^{su )ject to its prool alld relcvancyiln(l a 1' otrjections} that^{may be taken by the other side tbr markingh: s;lid C'D} and65in]a]eallyobjectionsaretakenhytheo:h:rl;ide,the same shall^{re recorded and considcred at the irne of final}

¶42

heartng

¶43

Accor^{lingly,this Civil Rcvision Petition is allov'ed}

¶44

Misce^{lancous applications,il-ani' pt:ndin11'shrrll stand}

¶45

closed.^Ther ':^{shall be tlo ordcrrls to costs} t

¶46

Sd/. MOHD.^{I;ANAJLLAHANSARI} AS:iIS;TA\IREGISTRAR I //rRUE coPY// I sEJiI{N oFFtcER

¶47

To,

¶48

1 . The^{Cha [man, Motor Vehicles Acciclents Tr tbunal cttm-l)rincipalDistrict} Judge,^{Hz trumakonda}

¶49

The^{VlllP lditional District Judgeat Warangal}

¶50

One^{CO t , SRl. AJAYKUMAR t'4ADISETTY Ad/ocate l(.'PUCI}

¶51

Two^{CD ( cPies}

%,<

HIGH COUITT

AAR, J

DATED: 2110412023

Hgtr
-,:=
-5
EJ

ORDER

CRP.No.48l of²⁰²³

ALLOWIN(i THE CIVIL REVISION^)ETITION

¶61

(
/, 1
la
L $
(

¶62

¶63

Doddipati Saraiah v. Vuppu Mallikarjun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doddipati Saraiah v. Vuppu Mallikarjun

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

Ms. K.V.N.V. Bharathi Devi Vs Sri M. Jagadeeswar, lAS

Challa Ramadevi Vs Rama Rama Rao and another

M/S. Economic Transport Organisation Floet Owners Vs Thodupunuri Srinivas and Another

M/S Espi Industries and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad Vs the Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and 1

Sale Ravi, Khammam District Vs the Commissioner , Dpet., F Ayush, and 3 Others

Jadhav Darabii, Adilabad District. Vs the Jawaharlal Nehru Technologicialuniversity, Hyd.