Allowed

P. Srinivas Reddy v. N.Srinivas

Telangana HC16 Feb 2023CRP/72/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging an order where the trial court deferred sending an agreement of sale to a handwriting expert without expressing an opinion. The Court held that the trial court failed to decide if the suit could be disposed of without a scientific expert report and set aside the order remanding the matter for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 09.12.2022 is set aside and the trial court is directed to dispose of the IA on merits within one month.

P. Srinivas Reddy Vs N.Srinivas — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 72 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under Article 227 o'f the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order daled. O9-12-2022 made in l.A.No. 717 of 2022 in O.S.No.91 of 2016 on the file of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge. Sangareddy, l/C Spl. Judge for SC/ S.Ts. (POA) Act cum lll Addl. District Judge at Sangareddy, and allow the said I.A No. 717 of 2022.

¶8

Between:

¶9

P. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Narasimha Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ. Business, R/o H No.5-85/121lA, Nandi Hills, Road No.51, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

¶10

.PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . N.Srinivas, S/o N. Pandu Aged 46 years Occ. Service Ri/o H No.1-18, Darga Hussain Shavali Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District

¶13

Jonnada Chandraiah, S/o Kistaiah Aged 50 years Occ. Service Ri/o Peddakanjerla Village, Patancheru Mandal Sangareddy District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶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 all further proceedings in O.S.No.91 of 2016 on the file of Learned on the file of lll Additional District and Sessions Judge. Sangareddy, l/C Spl. Judge for SC/ S.Ts. (POA) Act cum lll Addl. District Judge at Sangareddy.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI SHYAM S AGRAWAL

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HONBLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶21

CIVII- RIIVISION PETITION No.72 ol 2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Challenge rn this Civil Revision Petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.717 of 2022 in O.S.No.91 of 2016, dated 09.12.2022.

¶24

Heard Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as well as Sri Shyam S.Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶25

The revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff to the suit, moved an appiication under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking the trial Court to send Ex.A-lAgreement of sale to Handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of defendant No.l and DW.2. The trial Court wit\out expressing its opinion, whether sending of Ex.A- 1 io Handwriting expert is required or not, deferred the same. The findings given by the trial Court are as under:-

¶26

¶27

"Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the

¶28

case, this Court is of the opinion that the application t-rled by the petitioner can be called along with suit

¶29

Dr^r-SL. .l CRP.lto.l2 ol )0)l

¶30

and if the Court is of the opinion that main suit cannot be disposed of, without getting report lrom scientific expert, with regard to the opinion on signatures of D.W-l and DW-2, on Ex.A-1, the main suit can be re-opened and proper orders will be passed, in the present interlocutory application."

¶31

Making his submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that indicating valid reasons as to why Ex.A- l-Agreement of sale is required to be sent to Handwriting expert aIl application u,as filed, but without discussing about the merits of the application, passing of such an order by the trial Court is undesirable.

¶32

On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 is that there is no requirement for comparison of signatures and the learned judge of the trial Court has well compared the signatures. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 based his submission on Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶33

However, this Court is of the view that, basing on the merits of the case and the relief sought for, the learned^judge of the trial Court ought to have passed concrete orders in the interlocutory appiication in question. The learned judge of the

¶34

---

¶35

Dr CSL. J CRP.No⁷² of20)3

trial Court oughi- to have expressed his opinion whether the main suit can be disposed of without the report of the Scientific Expert. However, he did not do so" Therefore, the impugned orde r is liable to be set aside

¶40

Resultantly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order that is rendered by the Court of III Additiona-l District Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.717 of 2022 in O.S.No.91 of 20 16, dated 09.72.2022, is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.717 of 2022 on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity to both parties for submitting their contentions, if any, afresh, preferabiy ivithin a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

B. As a sequel, miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

Sd/.N.SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY//

¶43

To,

¶44

v SECTION OFFICER

¶45

1 The lll Additionat District and.Sessions Judge. Sangareddy, l/C Spl. Judge for SC/ S.Ts. (POA) Act cum ilt Addt. Distric"r Judgdit SiridareOOl^---"-

¶46

1. One CC to Sri P. Venkat Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to Sri Shyam S Agrawal, Advocate tOpUCI

¶47

Two CD Copies gbr

t \

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/0212023

-( AT E
(j
\ \t $s
.i;
Il,;'

ORDER

CRP.No.72 of 2023

\ \

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISlON PETITION

¶57

fua lj",

P. Srinivas Reddy v. N.Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Srinivas Reddy v. N.Srinivas

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

Narla Malsoor Vs The State of Telangana

Kallu Surendar Vs the State of Telangana

T.Baswaraj Vs The State of Telangana

Garikapati Venkata Satyanarayana Vs State of Telangana

Shaik Khaleel Vs The State of Telangana

Tousif Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana