Telangana High Court
CRP/5921/2009 of K.Jagan Reddy Vs Smt.K.Bharathamma on 31 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5921 of 2009 Between: K. Jagan Reddy .. Petitioner AND K. Bharathamma and 35 others (Respondents 8 to 35 are
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABADTHURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWOTHOUSAND AND NINE
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD
Civil Revision Petition No.5921 of 2009
Between:
K. Jagan Reddy
.. Petitioner
AND
K. Bharathamma and 35 others
(Respondents 8 to 35 are not necessaryparties to this CRP)
.. Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD
Civil Revision Petition No.5921 of 2009
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:
Heard Sri N. Vijay, learned counsel representing Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner andSri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7,whereas respondents 8 to 35 were stated to be not necessaryparties to the present revision petition.
I.A.No.522 of 2009 in O.S.No.41 of 2005 on the file of theSpecial Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes andthe Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VAdditional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, was filed underOrder XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read withSection 151 thereof with a request to permit recall of first defendant for cross-examination by defendants 4, 5, 10, 11,14, 15and 22 on the ground that such cross-examination was not doneearlier and some relevant questions pertaining to the saiddefendants were not put earlier. The said petition was allowed bythe trial Court on 29-10-2009 as counter was not filed.
The grievance of the revision petitioner, who is the firstdefendant in the suit, is that in the absence of any valid reasonfurnished by the applicants, the trial Court should not have orderedthe petition merely due to the absence of any counter and in theabsence of any conflict of interest stated by the applicantsbetween the defendants, the question of cross-examination of thefirst defendant by the other defendants does not arise. Therevision petitioner suspected collusion of the applicants with theplaintiffs to help whom they wish to cross-examine DW.1.
Irrespective of the other considerations, it is seen from thetwo word order in question that the merits of the request in thepetition were not considered by the trial Court and straight awayallowing the application due to the other party not filing a countermay not be indicative of application of the judicial mind by the trialCourt before accepting the request. Under the circumstances, itwill be but in the interests of justice to remit the matter back to thetrial Court to provide an opportunity to the other parties in the suitother than the applicants to file their counters and to contest theapplication on which the trial Court has to decide the same onmerits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, the impugned order in I.A.No.522 of 2009 inO.S.No.41 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for trial ofoffences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional District Judge,Medak at Sangareddy is set aside and the said petition is remitted back to the trial Court with the above directions. The CivilRevision Petition is ordered accordingly.
Date: 31-12-2009
_____________________G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J
Ksn