Telangana High Court
CRP/5111/2014 of Pydipati Sai Babu Vs Pydipati Satyanarayana on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5111 OF 2014 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.384 of 2013 aggrieved by the order, dated 15.10.2014, passed in I.A.No.211 of 2014 in the said
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5111 OF 2014
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:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of theConstitution of India, is filed by the defendants inO.S.No.384 of 2013 aggrieved by the order, dated15.10.2014, passed in I.A.No.211 of 2014 in the said Suitby the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge,Vijayawada.
The respondent – plaintiff has filed the aforesaid Suitseeking the following relief:
“The plaintiff, therefore prays that theHonourable Court may be pleased to grant adecree in favour of the plaintiff and against theDefendants;
i)for declaration that the Plaintiff is theabsolute owner of the Plaint ScheduleProperty by virtue of Registered Willdated 13.03.1981 executed by hisfather Pydipati Ramulu vide DocumentNo.67/1981 on the file of SRO,Vijayawadaabsolute owner of the Plaint ScheduleProperty by virtue of Registered Willdated 13.03.1981 executed by hisfather Pydipati Ramulu vide DocumentNo.67/1981 on the file of SRO,Vijayawada
ii)for consequential relief of recovery oft h e possession of the PlaintSchedule Property from the hands ofthe defendantst h e possession of the PlaintSchedule Property from the hands ofthe defendants
iii)For costs of the suit; and
iv)For all such other relief or reliefs asthe Honourable Court may deem fit andproper in the interests of justice andthe Honourable Court may deem fit andproper in the interests of justice and Subsequently, he has filed the present application toreceive certified copies of the registered sale deed, dated29.10.1999, and adangals, and a copy of demand noticeissued to petitioner No.1. The trial Court, by impugnedorder, dated 15.10.2014, has allowed the application.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners andperused the order under challenge.
It is the case of the petitioners that though thedocuments in question were available with the respondentat the time of filing of the Suit and though no reasons wereassigned by the respondent for not filing such documentsat that point of time, the impugned order was passed bythe trial Court.
It is the case of the respondent – plaintiff that as thedocuments in question were misplaced in his house, thesame could not be filed at the time of filing of the Suit.
In view of the fact that the Suit is of the year 2013and the documents in question are public documents, andin view of the reasons recorded by the trial Court, in theabsence of any prejudice caused to the petitioners, thisCourt is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orderpassed by the trial Court, in this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, in view ofthe additional documentary evidence filed by therespondent - plaintiff, if the petitioner – defendants intendto file any additional written statement, they are at liberty todo so by approaching the trial Court with appropriateapplication.
Subject to the above, the Civil Revision Petition isdisposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending inthis revision petition shall stand closed. No costs.
______________________
R.SUBHASH
REDDY, J
31[st] December, 2014MD