Telangana High Court
CRP/5580/2015 of Mahemooda Begum, Vs M.F.Nasar, on 31 December 2015
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 5717 and 5580 of 2015 DATED 31st December, 2015 BETWEEN Mahemooda Begum …Petitioner in both CRPs And M.F. Nasar and ors ….Respondents in both CRPs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A . RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 5717
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 5717 and 5580 of 2015
DATED 31[st ] December, 2015
BETWEEN
Mahemooda Begum
…Petitioner in both CRPs
And
M.F. Nasar and ors
….Respondents in both CRPs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 5717 and 5580 of 2015
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.
COMMON ORDER:
These two Civil Revision Petitions which arise out of oneand the same suit in O.S.No.35 of 2015 are being disposed ofby this common order.
The petitioner in these two Civil Revision petitions is thethird defendant in the aforesaid suit on the file of the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Mahabubnagar. The first respondentherein filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of amount based onthe mortgage deed. In the said suit, evidence was completed.At the fag end of the suit, the petitioner/third defendant filedI.A.No.1263 of 2015 for recalling P.W.1 for further cross-examination. She also filed I.A.No.1324 of 2015 for filingadditional written statement. Initially I.A.No.1263 of 2015 was allowed through order dated 20.11.2015 on payment of costsand posted the matter to 21.11.2015. On 21.11.2015 thepetitioner/Defendant No.3 refused to cross examine P.W.1 andsought for adjournment of the suit by seven days. In thosecircumstances, I.A.No.1263 of 2015 was dismissed through theorder under revision dated 21.11.2015. I.A.No.1324 of 2015 filedby the petitioner/third defendant was also dismissed on thesame day on the ground that the contentions raised in theaccompanying affidavit and additional written statement ofDefendant No.3 are not based on the pleadings of the plaintiff.Now the suit is posted for judgment.
Since the Court below itself granted time to thepetitioner/third defendant for cross examination of P.W.1 byorder dated 20.11.2015, this Court thought it fit proper to allow I.A.No.1263 of 2015 which was dismissed on 21.11.2015 withcosts. Accordingly I.A.No.1263 of 2015 is allowed with costs atRs.5000/- payable to the learned Counsel appearing for theplaintiff within one week from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order provided that the judgment is not pronounced today. Ifjudgment is pronounced, this order will not come into operation.
So far application in I.A.No.1324 of 2015 is concerned, itis an application for filing additional written statement by thethird defendant in the suit, who is a subsequent purchaser. ThisCourt is of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Courtdated 21.11.2015 is correct and does not call for anyinterference.
For the foregoing discussion, Civil Revision Petition No.5717 of 2015 is dismissed while Civil Revision Petition No. 5580
of 2015 is allowed to the extent indicated in paragraph 3 of thisorder. It is made clear that if the judgment is not pronounced,the petitioner/third defendant shall complete the crossexamination of P.W.1 by 31.1.2016. The trial Court shalldispose of the suit by 29.02.2016.
Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any inthe Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed in consequence.No order as to costs.
---------------------------------------------------JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAODATED 31[st] December, 2015.Msnrx