Telangana High Court
CRP/5417/2011 of Md. Rizwan, Vs Jakkam Ramanjan Rao, on 30 December 2011
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5417 & 5418 of 2011 Date: 30.12.2011 Between: Md.Rizwan ..... Petitioner And: Akkam Ramanjan Rao And seven others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V.Venu For Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5417 & 5418 of 2011
Between:Md.Rizwan
And:
Date: 30.12.2011
..... Petitioner
Akkam Ramanjan RaoAnd seven others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V.Venu For Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.RamalingeswaraReddy The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
Since the parties and the subject matter of these twoCivil Revision Petitions are common, they are heard andbeing disposed of together.
The petitioner in both these Civil Revision Petitions isrespondent No.4 in R.C.C.No.1 of 2002 on the file of thelearned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, filed byrespondent No.1 in both these Revision Petitions.Respondent No.1 filed the said R.C.C. seeking eviction ofthe petitioner from the petition schedule property. Thepetitioner has filed I.A.No.326 of 2011 seeking to call for the documents filed in O.S.No.1060 of 2001, which was filed byhis father. He has filed I.A.No.324 of 2011 for recallinghimself for further examination in connection with thedocuments sought to be summoned in I.A.No.326 of 2011.He has also filed I.A.No.325 of 2011 seeking re-opening ofthe said R.C.C., which was closed after evidence, with aview to adduce further evidence on his behalf. By aseparate order, dated 05.09.2011, I.A.No.326 of 2011 wasdismissed by the Court below. Following the said dismissal,I.A.Nos.324 and 325 of 2011 were also dismissed. CivilRevision Petition No.5418 of 2011 is filed against the order,dated 05.09.2011, in I.A.No.324 of 2011, and Civil RevisionPetition No.5417 of 2011 is filed against the order, dated05.09.2011, in I.A.No.325 of 2011.
A perusal of these orders would show that sinceI.A.No.326 of 2011 was dismissed, following the same, bothI.A.Nos.324 and 325 of 2011 were also dismissed.
At the hearing, it is not disputed that the purpose offiling I.A.Nos.324 and 325 of 2011 was to enable thepetitioner to adduce further evidence with reference to thedocuments which were sought to be summoned inI.A.No.326 of 2011. However, this purpose is defeated withthe dismissal of I.A.No.326 of 2011, the order in which hasbecome final as the petitioner failed to question the same.
In this view of the matter, the Court below was right indismissing both I.A.Nos.324 and 325 of 2011. Therefore,the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictionalerror warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India.
Both the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil RevisionPetitions, C.R.P.M.P.Nos.7665 and 7666 of 2011 filed bythe petitioner for interim reliefs are dismissed as infructuous.
__________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J30[th] December 2011DR