CRP/5815/2011 of Shaik Nannu Bhu Vs Shaik Hussain Peran Saheb on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated08.11.2011, passed in I.A.No.373 of 2011 in O.S.No.122 of 2007 onthe file of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla, Kurnool District, wherebyand whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed theapplication filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 17 r/w.Section 151 CPC.

2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revisionunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiff inO.S.No.122 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla,are: The petitioner filed the suit for perpetual injunction. She adducedevidence on her behalf. Thereafter, the respondent/defendantadduced evidence on his behalf. When the case stood posted for arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.373 fo 2011 under Order18, Rule 17 r/w.Sec.151 CPC seeking permission to give evidenceonce again. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,that her evidence has not been properly recorded and there are sometypographical mistakes in her deposition. It is pertinent to refer para.4of the affidavit, which reads as hereunder:

“I submit that in my cross examination in page No.2 frombottom to top it was mentioned “It is true that I have sold the entireproperty which was gifted to me by my father under Ex.A3 to saidVallapureddy Obulamma… which is not correct and I nevercompleted the registration also to the said Obulamma. Like thatthere are some more submissions which were in the cross-examination are not as per my acceptation.”

The respondent/defendant filed counter resisting the application. It isstated in the counter that the petitioner moved the application when thecase stood posted for arguments on 30.06.2011 and that the evidenceof the witnesses came to be recorded in the open Court.

3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the materialbrought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for theparties, came to the conclusion that the entire cross-examination ofPW.1 got typed to his dictation in the presence of the petitioner’scounsel and therefore, there are no justifiable grounds to permit thepetitioner to re-examine her and thereby proceeded to dismiss thepetition, by order, dated 08.11.2011. Hence, this revision.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusedthe order impugned in the revision.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is an illiterate and her evidence has not been properlyrecorded.

6. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. Thelearned Junior Civil Judge has categorically mentioned in the orderthat the evidence has been recorded in his presence and whatever the

witness stated has been recorded. The contention of the petitioner thatshe is an illiterate and therefore, some mistakes have been crept in tothe questions put to her in the cross-examination cannot be sustained. The petitioner allowed the defendant to adduce evidence andthereafter, evidence on both the sides came to be closed. When thecase stood posted for arguments, the petitioner came up with anapplication under Order 18, Rule 17 r/w. Sec.151 CPC. Had therebeen any mistakes in recording of the deposition, the petitioner musthave been moved the application at least before commencement of theevidence on behalf of the respondent/defendant. In the given facts andcircumstances, I do not see any illegality or irregularly in the orderimpugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court inexercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date:30[th] December, 2011.

cs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Civil Revision Petition No.5815 of 2011

Date:30th December, 2011