Telangana High Court
CRP/5640/2015 of Induri Prasad Reddy, Vs Karasani Ramachnadra Reddy, on 31 December 2015
Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.5640 of 2015 Date: 31.12.2015 Between: Induri Prasad Reddy .. Petitioner and Karasani Ramachandra Reddy .. Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Koneti Raja Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Mr.P.Gopal Das The Court made the
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.5640 of 2015
Date: 31.12.2015
Between:Induri Prasad Reddy ..PetitionerandKarasani Ramachandra Reddy
.. Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Koneti Raja Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Mr.P.Gopal Das 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.
O r d e r :
The petitioner, who is the defendant inOS.No.129 of 2012, on the file of the Court of thelearned III Additional District Judge, Guntur, filed bythe respondent for declaration of title and recoveryof possession of the plaint schedule property, filedthis Civil Revision Petition feeling aggrieved bydocket order, dated 03-11-2015, allowingIA.No.1174 of 2015 and summoning the MunicipalCommissioner for giving evidence and causingproduction of property tax record and also theopinion of the Standing Counsel, Guntur MunicipalCorporation, with regard to the plaint scheduleproperty.
After hearing the learned Counsel for bothparties, I am of the opinion that, to the extent of summoningthe Commissioner of Guntur Municipal Corporation,for giving evidence and to cause production ofproperty tax record, no exception can be taken. However, as regards the legal opinion of theStanding Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation, the same cannot be summoned as it is a privilegedcommunication besides the fact that it is notrelevant evidence. Therefore, the order underrevision to the extent of placing the opinion of theStanding Counsel, Guntur Municipal Corporationbefore the Court alone is set aside while theremaining part is confirmed.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions,pending if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.
______________________
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 31[st] December, 2015lur