Telangana High Court
CRP/5697/2010 of Vidiyala Subrahmanyam, Vs M/s. Sri Venkateswara Rice Mills, on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5697 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: Challenging the docket order dated 19th July, 2010 passed by the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, in I.A.No. 221 of 2010 in A.S.No. 249 of 2009, the present Civil Revision Petition is
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDCIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5697 OF 2010ORAL ORDER:
Challenging the docket order dated 19[th] July,2010 passed by the XI Additional District Judge,Tenali, Guntur District, in I.A.No. 221 of 2010 inA.S.No. 249 of 2009, the present Civil RevisionPetition is filed.
Petitioner herein is the unsuccessful plaintiff inO.S.No. 133 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,Tenali. The suit was dismissed by the trial Courtand aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein filedA.S.No. 249 of 2009 along with an application viz.,I.A.No. 221 of 2010 and the appellate Court by orderdated 19[th] July 2010 set aside the judgment anddecree of the trial Court and remitted the suit forfresh disposal on the plea of discharge by taking intoaccount the additional evidence to be adduced byplaintiff-petitioner herein. The lower appellate Courtalso dismissed the I.A.No. 221 of 2010 filed by thepetitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, thepresent Civil Revision Petition is filed.
The learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submits that the lower appellate Courtshould have considered the application for sending the expert opinion when the matter is remanded totrial Court for fresh consideration.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material madeavailable on record.
In a suit filed for recover of money on the basis of promissory note, the question of sending thedocument to an expert for his opinion depends onthe facts and circumstances of each case, to grantor not to grant such relief is the discretion of theCourt and the same cannot be interfered with unlessgrave prejudice is caused to the other side or a partyis put on an advantageous position. Section 17 ofthe Indian Evidence Act reads as under:
“17. Admission defined: An admission is astatement, oral or documentary, whichsuggests any inference as to any fact in issueor relevant fact, and which is made by any ofthe persons, and under the circumstances,hereinafter mentioned.”
In view of the above, I see no reasons tointerfere with the order passed by the lowerappellate Court under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition isdismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
GHULAM MOHAMMED,J
DATE: 31.12.2010
KA