Telangana High Court
CRP/3168/2015 of ChintapaIli Kanaka Durga Vs Gutta Ramakrishna on 31 December 2015
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3168 and 3195 of 2015 DATED 31st December, 2015 BETWEEN Chintapalli Kanaka Durga …Petitioner in both CRPs And Gutta Ramakrishna and anr …Respondents in both CRPs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A . RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3168 and 3195 of 2015
DATED 31[st] December, 2015
BETWEENChintapalli Kanaka Durga
…Petitioner in both CRPs
And
Gutta Ramakrishna and anr
…Respondents in both CRPs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3168 and 3195 of 2015COMMON ORDER:
These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the sameO.S.No.130 of 2010 on the file of the learned VIII AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Despite service ofnotice, none reappeared for the respondents nor anyrepresentation is made on their behalf.
The first respondent herein filed the aforesaid suitseeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated4.12.2008 executed by the petitioner herein. The secondrespondent/second defendant herein is the subsequentpurchaser. After completion of evidence, the petitioner/firstdefendant filed two applications being I.A.No.510 of 2015 andI.A.No.511 of 2015 for recalling of P.Ws.1 and 2 and D.Ws.1and 2 respectively for the purpose of cross-examination by him on the ground that there was communication gap between himand his counsel. It is stated that now he engaged new Advocate and it is necessary for him to cross examine the witnesses. Itis not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the property.In the circumstances the Court beliow dismissed I.A.Nos.510and 511 of 2015 through order dated 1.7.2015 holding that thepetition was filed at the stage of posting the suit for argumentsand he has not filed a petition to reopen the evidence. The Courtbelow further observed that the petitions were filed only to dragon the proceedings at the belated stage.
Since the petitioner is the owner of the property, in orderto give him sufficient opportunity in the suit, this Court fells itjust and proper to allow the applications being I.A.No.510 and511 of 2015 filed by the first defendant in the suit subject topayment of costs of Rs.1000/- each payable to the plaintiffwithin a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt a copy ofthis order. The petitioner shall cross examine the witnesseswho already deposed within a period of three months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further made clearthat the suit shall be disposed of by 30.04.2016.
The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed to the extentindicated above. Miscellaneous petitions pending considerationif any in the Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed inconsequence. No order as to costs.
--------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
DATED 31[st] December, 2015.
Msnrx