Telangana High Court
CRP/6325/2009 of John David Vs Y. Adimurthy on 31 December 2009
Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6325 OF 2009 Dated: 31.12.2009 Between: John David … petitioner And 1. Y. Adi Murthy and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6325 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINICIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6325 OF 2009
Dated:31.12.2009
Between:
John David … petitioner
And
1. Y. Adi Murthy and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6325 OF 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.
ORDER:
The petitioner is the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.175 of 2003 onthe file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur. It is a suit forrecovery of money based on a mortgage deed. The plaintiff/1[st]respondent herein gave evidence as P.W.1 and on 12.11.2009 theCourt below recorded as under :
“This Court is of the opinion that since MortgageDeed is a Registered one, the counsel for theDefendant can cross examine the attesting witnesses,that there is no necessity for corroboration.
Yet the counsel for the defendant did not proceedto cross-examination. This is suit of 2003 for recovery ofamount. The counsel for the defendant dragged themater on and on on one pretext or the other.Considering the nature of the suit and since the counselfor the defendant refused to cross examine the witness,the cross-examination of the witness is treated NIL.”
Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition isfiled contending that the Court below committed a grave error in treating the cross-examination of P.W.1 as ‘NIL’.
The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contendedthat the observation of the Court below that the counsel for thedefendant refused to cross-examine the witness was incorrect. The learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of thecase there shall be a direction to the Court below to reopen theevidence of P.W.1.
The law is well-settled that the statements recorded by thejudges have to be accepted. Even where the proceedings in theCourt are alleged to have been wrongly recorded, the proper course isto file a Review petition before the same Court and it is not a matterfor interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Dt. 31.12.2009 gbs
____________
G. ROHINI, J.