Telangana High Court
CRP/6522/2012 of P.Suresh Babu Vs Sarfarazunnisa on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6522 2012 December 31, 2012 Between: P.Suresh Babu, S/o.P.Venkatesh And another … Petitioners/ Respondents/ Tenants AND Sarfarazunnisa, W/o.Mir Shoukat Ali … Respondent/ Petitioner/ Landlady THE HON’BLE SRI
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6522 2012
December 31, 2012
Between:P.Suresh Babu, S/o.P.Venkatesh And another
AND
… Petitioners/Respondents/Tenants
Sarfarazunnisa, W/o.Mir Shoukat Ali
… Respondent/
Petitioner/Landlady
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6522 of 2012
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.
ORDER:
In this civil revision petition assailed order dated 23.11.2012passed in I.A. No.546 of 2012 (I.A) in O.S.No.383 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, CityCivil Court, Hyderabad.
The petitioners herein are the tenants and the respondent hereinis the landlady of the petition schedule property. The I.A. was filed bythe landlady under Order XXVI Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to appoint an AdvocateCommissioner to mark documents and to record her cross-examination(as P.W.1) at her residence with house No.19-5-17/A/4, Bahadurpura,Hyderabad on the ground that she was suffering from liver problem,chronic diabetes with hypertension and joint pains by reason of whichshe was undergoing treatment frequently at Yashoda Hospital,Malakpet, Hyderabad as a result of which it was not possible to her toattend the Court to give evidence on her behalf. She also filed medicalcertificate in this regard. The respondents resisted the claim claimingthat a false plea was taken to avoid her examination before the Courtand therefore the I.A. should not be allowed.
The Court below allowed the I.A. on the basis of a medicalcertificate produced. Having gone through the record, I find noreasons to take a contrary view. There are no merits in the petitionthereby.
In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed.Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
___________________________________
(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
December 31, 2012.YS