Telangana High Court
CRP/4509/2009 of Abbireddi Nageswara Rao Vs Nalla Rama Rao on 31 December 2009
A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.4509/2009 DT.31-12-2009 1.Abbireddi Nageswara Rao (died), his LRs P-2 to P4. (P2 to P5 are added as per orders of this court dt.20-11-2009 in CMP No.7407/2009) …Petitioners V. 1. Nalla Rama Rao and others. ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
CRP No.4509/2009
DT.31-12-2009
1.Abbireddi Nageswara Rao (died), his LRs P-2 to P4.
(P2 to P5 are added as per orders of this court dt.20-11-2009 in CMPNo.7407/2009) …Petitioners
V.
1. Nalla Rama Rao and others. ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
CRP No.4509/2009
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.
ORAL ORDER:
This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff againstthe orders of the Junior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram dt. 28-8-2009passed in IA No.344/2009 in OS No.97/2001, whereunder petition filedfor reopening the plaintiff’s evidence has been dismissed.
Originally, CRP was filed by petitioner-plaintiff No.1. Duringthe pendency of the revision petition, he died and his LRs Petitioners 2to 4 were added as per orders of this court dt. 20-11-2009 inCMP No.7407/2009.
The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. He failedto lead evidence in spite of granting 19 adjournments by the trial courtfrom 14-6-2005 to 7-3-2006, spread over for a period of nine months. The trial court after closing the evidence of the plaintiff posted thematter for defendants’ evidence. After adducing the evidence ofD.W.1 and when the matter is coming up for further evidence of thedefendants, the plaintiff filed the above petition to reopen his evidencefor adducing further evidence. On dismissal of the petition, the plaintifffiled the present revision before this court.
The trial court while dismissing the petition observed that even after granting sufficient time, the plaintiff failed to adduceevidence and his evidence was closed on 20-2-2007. From 20-2-2007 till the date of filing the present petition, the plaintiff did not advance his case and no particulars were mentioned in the affidavitfiled along with the petition and no documents were filed tosubstantiate his contention that he fell sick and admitted in the hospitalat Hyderabad. Further, the plaintiff did not file any list of witnessesalong with his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination or along with thepresent application to show his bona fides that he is going to examinesom other witnesses.
Since the suit is filed for permanent injunction and during thependency of the revision petition, original plaintiff died and his LRswere brought on record, to put a quietus to the litigation, thepetitioners-plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to lead furtherevidence.
In view of the same, the impugned order dt. 28-8-20090 passed in IA No.344/2009 in OS No.97/2001 on the file ofJunior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram closing the evidence of plaintiffs isset-aside and IA No.344/2009 is allowed subject to petitioners-plaintiffs paying a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rs. Two thousand and fivehundred only) to the respondents-defendants on or before 20-1-2010; filing affidavits in lieu of chief- examination of the witnesses proposedto be examined on their behalf and producing witnesses for cross-examination on the date to be fixed by the trial court. In default ofcompliance of any of the conditions, the revision petition shall standdismissed.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
_______________
A. GOPAL REDDY, J