Common order dismissing three civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of applications to receive documents, recall witness, and reopen evidence in a money recovery suit.
Civil revision petitions C.R.P. Nos. 6289, 6312, and 6319 of 2018 dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3260 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD.
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
ClVllSEVlSloN PETITIoN Nol 62E9,631 2,631 I OF 20 1 8
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6289 OF 2018:
Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia against the Order dated 191912018 in lA No. 1 591 of 2018 in O.S. No. 1 1 5 of 2013 on the file of the court.
Between:
Seesala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Ranga Rao, aged 52 years, Occ. LIC Employee, Rl/o. Plot No.31 1 , Lakshmi Mega Township, Ragannaguda, Turkayanjal Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. R.R.Dist.,
...PETITIONERYPETITIONER
AND
Tatiparthy Koteshwarah, S/o Subha Ramaiah, Aged 54 years, Occ. Government Employee, R/o. H.No.35, Sri Srinivasapura colony, Near Gurramguda, B.N.Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad Hyderabad
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the APPELLANT : SRI CH VENKAT RAMAN
Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI NIZAMPUR CHANDRA SEKHAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6312 OF 2018
Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia against the Order dated1Sl9l2O1B inlANo. 1592of 2018inO.S.No. 115of 2013 onthefileof thecourt.
Between:
Seesala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Ranga Rao, aged 52years, Occ LIC Employee, R/o. Plot No.311, Lakshmi lvlega Township,Ragannaguda, Turkayanjal Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict.
...PETITIONERJPETITIONER
AND
Tatiparthy Koteshwarah, S/o Subha Ramaiah, Aged 54 years, Occ Government Employee, Rl/o. H.No.35, Sri Srinivasapura colony, Near Gurramguda, B.N.Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDE NTS
Counsel for the APPELLANTS :SRl. CH VENKAT RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NIZAMPUR CHANDRA SEKHAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6319 OF 2018
Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia against the Order dated 19l9l2O1B in lA No. 1 593 of 2018 in O.S. No. 1 1 5 of 201 3 on the file of the court.
Between:
Seesala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Ranga Rao, aged 52 years, Occ- LIC Employee, R/o. Plot No.311, Lakshmi Mega Township, Ragannaguda, Turkayanjal Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
.,.PETITIONERYPETITIONER
AND
Tatiparthy Koteshwarah, S/o Subha Ramaiah, Aged 54 years, OccGovernment Employee, Rl/o. H.No.35, Sri Srinivasapura colony, Near Gurramguda, B.N.Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT
Counsel for the APPELLANTS:SRl CH VENKAT RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NIZAMPUR CHANDRA SEKHAR
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
a
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 6289 6312 and 6319 of2018
COMMON ORDER:
C.R.P.No.6289 of 2018 is f,rled under Article 221 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order, dated 19.09.2018 in I.A.No.1591 of 2018 in O.S.No.l15 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Cour1, Hyderabad.
C.R.P.No.6312 of 2018 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order, dated 19.09.2018 in I"A.No.1592 of 2018 in O.S.No.115 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
C.R.P.No.6319 of 2018 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order, dated 19.09.2018 in I.A.No.1593 of 2018 in O.S.No.115 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
same in all the revisions and they arise out of the same suit, these civil revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.
I
\ t
-3-
that the petitioner has failed to explainreasons for non-filing ofthe same at the time of filing of suit and faiied to explain how the subject documents are relevant for disposal of the suit. Challenging the same, thepresent revisions arepreferred.
7 " A perusal of the material on record would disclose that in the main suit filed by thepetitioner forrecovery of money, the evidence onpetitioner's side was completed and at that stage, the present three applications are filed to receive the documents. In the affidavits filed in support of said applications, thepetitioner stated that while, he was searching for LIC records, he has found some documents pertaining to the suit. They are very relevant and crucial to prove his case. As such, he has filed the applications to receive, recall PW. I and reopen the evidence of PW. I respectively.
-4
ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalfat the hearing ofthe suit.
5
assign any valid reasons about the reievancy of the subject documents as to why they have not been produced along with the plaint, when they are very much in his possession and which are supposed to be entered in list of documents, the trial Court has rightly refused to receive the same and dismissed the application. Consequently, the applications filed to recall and reopen the evidence on behalf of the petitioner were also dismissed. Apart from this, since the evidence of PW.1 was already closed as contended by the respondents, it is not proper to receive the documents at this stage.
1 i. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
SD/.N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE coPYtt C:L, SECTION OFFICER
\
To,
EPS
HIGH COURT
DATED:2 410212023
COMMON ORDER
-..1<br>v",
.s
:
o
s
ll- $
\ ti *
GRP.No.6289,6312,631 I ot 2018
CRP IS DISMISSED
BElbLu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court was justified in refusing to receive documents delayed to the exclusion period under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India after the trial court dismissed applications to recall and reopen evidence.
Whether the documents proposed to be received were relevant and properly explained after the petitioner had completed his examination-in-chief.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Seesala Venkateswara Rao
Tatiparthy Koteshwarah
A. Santhosh Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
