Dismissed

K.Sridhar v. Gone Sudershan Reddy

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023CRP/765/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application to summon a Tahsildar. The Court held that the petitioner could obtain a certified copy and file it, as this process serves the purpose of marking evidence and requires no interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; the petitioner is left open to file an appropriate application to obtain and mark a certified copy of the document.

K.Sridhar Vs Gone Sudershan Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I : I i f i : I I I I i l I I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 765 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under Article 227 oI lhe Constitution of lndia, praying aggrieved by the Order dated 21-02-2023 passed in l.A No. 52 ol 2023 lN O.S. No. 1587 of 2012, on the file of PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUD|C|AL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS WARANGAL AT HANUMAKONDA

¶8

Between

¶9

K.Sridhar, S/o.Komuraiah, aged about 48 yrs, Occ. Employee, Fi/o.H.No.23-6263/4, New Shayampet, Hanamkonda, Warangal

¶10

.....PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO 2

¶11

AND

¶12

Gone Sudershan Reddy, S/o.Malla Reddy, Aged about 52 yrs, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.1 1-24-53, N/arri Venkataiah Colony, Road No.3, Near Pochamma Maidan, Warangal.

¶13

......RESPONDENT /PLAINTIFF

¶14

P.Narsaiah, S/o.tr/allarah, aged 50 yrs, Occ. Labour, Rl/o.Ramannapet, Warangal -506 002 (R-2 is not necessary in this CRP)

¶15

.....RESPONDENT/OEFENDANT NO 1

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of final hearing in the suit OS No.1587 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Crvil Judge, Warangal at Hanamkonda, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Pelition by this Hon'ble Court

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. M RAMAKANTH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.765 of 2O23

¶22

RDER:

¶23

The present Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2, challenging the order dated 21.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2023 in O.S.No.1587 of 2Ot2 by the learned Principal Junior Civil J udge-cum-J ud icia I Magistrate of First Ciass, Warangal, wherein the I.A.No.52 of 2023 filed by the petitroner/defendant No.2 under Section 30 of CpC and Order XVI R.ule 6 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to summon thethen Tahsildar (Khila Fort Warangal) to appear before the Court along with file bearing RC No.A31596/03 or any person autnorized by him for exhibiting the proceedings oF the File, foi- marking the same in evidence on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.2, was dismissed by the trial Court.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 has stated that the trial Court on an erroneous appreciation of the facts and law has dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed

¶26

Ar\R..l C R P \o'l05 ol 2r)2i

¶27

¶28

by the^{petitioner/defendant No.2.That tlre trial Cotlrthas} misdirected itself by dismissing the^{InterlocutoryApplication} filed by the^petitioner for making^{the aforesaid document.The} learned counsel for the^petitioner has stated^{that the} petitioner is not a party to the said document and^therefore, the petitioner cannot mark the document on^{his own. It is} further stated that unless and until^{the Tahsildar concerned is} summoned and the relevant record^{is produced, the saiC} document cannot be marked in evidence.^{Ihe learnedcounsel} ior the petitioner has stated that on earlier^{occasion,this} Court in C.R.P.No.2943 of 2022^{has directed the petitionerto} obtain the certified copy of the document^{and file the same} before the trial Court for^getting the^{same marked but the} trial Court has dismissed the Interlocutory^{Application on an} erroneous ground. Moreover, the trial Court was of^the opinion that the document sought to be^{marked is not on} record but as a matter of fact, the said document^{was already} on record when the I.A.No.52 ot 2023 was disposed^of. Therefore, the learned counsel^prayed this Court to allow^the present Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 27.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2023 in O.S.No.15B7^of 2Ol2 by the trlal Court.

¶29

AAR, J Ll tl P No 765 o12023

¶30

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/plaintiFf has vehemenUy opposed the very maintainability of the Civil Revision petition and stated that the trial Court duly appreciating the issue involved, has rightly dismissed the I A filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel has stated that the suit is coming up for arguments and at the very fag end, the petitioner is tiling one Interlocutory Application after a nothe r oniy to drag on the suit. Moreover, it is stated by the learned counsel that the remarks made by the Tahsildar in the document soug ht to be marked have already been set aside by the lcint Collector and the petitioner is also aware of the same. Therefore, no useful purpose would be achieved even rf the said document is marked

¶32

After going through the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2023 in O.S.No.1SB7 of 2Ol2 by the learned principal lunior Civil ludge_cum_ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangat, and also the earlier order dated 24.02.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.2943 of 2022, rhis Court is of the opinion that the order which is impugned in the present Civil Revision petition

¶33

AAR, J C R P No⁷⁶⁵ of2023

¶34

¶35

does not suffer from any^{infirmity.Though the petitioneris} not a^party to the said^{proceedings,if the petitionerwants to} rely on the document^{vide Rc. No.A3/596/2003dated} 04.10.2003 on the file of^{the Mandal RevenueOfficer,} Warangal Mandal and^mark the^{same, the petitioner can get} the said document marked.^{Even the learned counsel} appearing on behalf of^{respondentNo'1 has stated thatthey} have no objection for^{gettingthe certified copy of the said} document marked^{subject to proof and relevancyand other} objections that may be^{dealt with at the time of finalhearing.} Moreover, this Court in C.R.P.No.2943^{of 2022, has passed} the following order:

¶36

"However, it is made clear that^{the petitioner is free to} obtain the certified^{capies and filethe same beforethe trial} Court. On fiting the documents,^{the trzl Courtshall take} them on record subject^{to proof and relevancyand other} objections that may be^{LakenbY the other side."}

¶37

Having regard to the same,^{this CivilRevisionPetitionis} dismissed leaving it open to the^{petitionerto file appropriate} application for receiving the document vide Rc.No.A3l596/2003 dated 04.10.2003 on the^{file oF Mandal} Revenue Officer, Warangal, and^getting the same^marked through his witness or on his own.

¶38

AAR, J C.R.P No 765^()t 2023

¶39

¶40

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶41

closed. There shall be no order as to costs

¶42

Sd/- B. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

To,

sEcTtoN oFFtcER

The P_rincipal Junior Civil Judge, t Hanamkonda Warangal District

¶47

One CC to SRI M RAIVAKANTH Advocare IOPUC]

¶48

3.One CC to SRI IvIURAL|DHAR REDDY KAiRAIV Advocate tOpUCl

¶49

Two CD Copies

¶50

?."'t^"

¶51

HIGH COURT DATED:1210412023

¶52

ORDER

¶53

CRP.No.765 ot 2023

¶54

i I i-1 i.,tr I(c
,<br>,:).)J 3 0 t'lAY zUZl rl
i
*l'-'Yr

¶55

G?^t'' \q\s'3

¶56

DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

K.Sridhar v. Gone Sudershan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sridhar v. Gone Sudershan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Ravi Kumar, Mahaboobnagar District Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., Hyd and 2OTS

B. Eshwaraiah (Died) Lr Vs Dr.D.Ramakrishna, And 3 Others

K.Ramulu, Apsrtc, Zonal Workshop, Karimnagar Vs Apsrtc., Rep.by Its M.D., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another

Bhupathi Venkateswarlu Vs the Govt. of a.P., Welfare Dept. and 3 Ors.

Belle Pushpa Vs Permila Satpathi

Smt. Narra Shyamala and 2 others Vs Bairy Manohara Swamy and 4 others