Plaintiff sought to adduce additional documents on appeal against dismissal of a specific performance suit; the appellate court declined. The High Court found the order suffered no legal infirmity and dismissed the civil revision petition.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.2825 of 2024
Civil revision filed under Afitcle 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated29.1-1.2023 passed in I.A.No.275 of 2023 in A.s.No.24 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Peddapalli.
Between:
9!gpp:.i ,Anjaiah,S/o. Rajalah, Aged about 49 years,Occ.Agricutrure,R/o. H.No. 2-238. Sulthanabad ( V) and (M), Peddapalli Disrrict.
...petitioner/peririoner/plaintiff.
AN D
Res. No. 1 to 3 are R,/o. Poosala Village of Sulthanabad Mandal, peddapalli District.
6 Vusthem Anjailh, S/o. Veeresham, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agric u f ture. 7. Vusthe-m Raju, Srlo. Veeresham, Aged about 30 years, Occ.Autobrivcr.
(R6 ancl R7 are Lrs of R2 brought on record as per Order in IA No. 77 /ZOZ1, d,t. 27 /04/2023)
tA No: 1 oF 2oz4
"'Respondents/Respon6lsnl5/ Defendants.
Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in tlre affitlavit filed in support of the petitiorq the High Court may bc pleased to stay all further proceedings including hearing of Appeal in A.s. No. 24 of z02l on tht' file of the Principal District Judge at l,eddapalli pencling clisposal of the above C.R.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Y.Rama Rao & Associates
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri T.P.Acharya.
'I he Court rnade the following: ORDER
I
/
( I I
i, I
I I
I I
THE HON'BtESR,i JUSTICEC. V. BHASKARREDDY
C.R.P.No.2825 of2O24
ORDER:
A^ggrievccl bythe oi-cr,er,dated 29'i1'2023passed in I-A.No.21.-r oi2C211 in A'S.'n*o.24 of'2O21by the Principal District Jucrge,Peddapalii, the preseht Cir"il RevisionPetition is filed byllre petit ionei-/ plerintiff'
2
additional documents. woulci amounts to changing the nature of the suit instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff.
As a sequel th.r:reto, rniscellaneous petition s. ii an_v.
pc,idi:-,g shall stand e iosecl.
Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / /TRUECOPv//
tTCIION OFFICER
'tb,
I
1,'l'he Principal District Judge at Peddapalli. 2. One CC to Sri Y.Rama Rao & Associates,Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri T.P.Acharya, Advocate [OPUC] ,1.'fwo CD Copies.
JCK/gh
HIGHCOURT
DATED:06/72/202a
ORDER
CRP.No.2825 of 2024
1 E STAT €
t
il
c 10 F[ts 7[25
I
<br>I
<br>
Dismissing the C.R.P. r.ithtou costs
Ot
F..
7o
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly refused to receive documents as additional evidence in the pending appeal under Article 227.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anjaiah
Vusthem Veeresham
Vusthem Kanakamma
Vusthem Ganesh
Mallojula Shankara Sharma
Kumuloju Mallojula Thaymalabai
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
