Telangana High Court

CRP/5361/2011 of Boddu Venkateswara Rao, Vs Yanamala Rajeswaramma, on 30 December 2011

SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5361 OF 2011 ORDER: The order under revision is the order passed by the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.193 of 2011 in O.S.No.41 of 2005 dated 30.5.2011. By the impugned order the Learned Judge allowed the

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANCIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5361 OF 2011

ORDER:

The order under revision is the order passed by the I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.193 of 2011 in O.S.No.41 of2005 dated 30.5.2011. By the impugned order the Learned Judgeallowed the application observing:

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feelsthat it is just and necessary to give ample opportunity to the parties toadduce evidence to prove their case.”

While it is no doubt true that, under Order 18 Rule 17, theCourt may, at any stage, recall any witness who has beenexamined and may put such questions to him as the Court thinksfit, the order of the Court should at least indicate reasons as towhy it considered it necessary, (more so, on an application filedby the defendant), that D.W.1 should be recalled and examined.The discretionary power conferred on the court by order 18 Rule17, is hedged by the requirement of assigning reasons and, sincethe impugned order is bereft of reasons, it must be set aside.

Both Sri M.Ramalingeswara Reddy, Learned Counsel for thepetitioner and Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, Learned Counsel for therespondent would seek to make submissions on merits. I see noreason to examine the contentions urged by counsel on either sidesince none of these contentions are recorded in the order of theCourt below. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises underArticle 227 of the Constitution is supervisory and not appellate.

Since the order of the Court below is totally bereft of reasons it isaccordingly set aside.

The Court below shall hear the I.A. afresh, and pass areasoned order in accordance with law. It is made clear thatparties on either side are entitled to file additional affidavits if theyso choose. Since the suit relates to the year 2005, it is butappropriate that the Court below disposes of the I.A. within twomonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The C.R.P. is, accordingly, allowed.

____________

30-12-2011

Note:Issue C.C. in one weekB/oasp

Page 1 of 1

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead