Telangana High Court
CRP/5199/2018 of Shaik Mahboob Ali Vs Mula Raju on 28 December 2018
DR.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5199 of 2018 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the docket order, dated 16.08.2018, passed in I.A.No.445 of 2018 in O.S.No.28 of 2012
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.5 1 9 9 of 2 0 1 8
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 the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff, challenging the docket order, dated 16.08.2018, passed in I.A.No.445 of 2018 in O.S.No.28 of 2012 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to receive the document, viz. Notice, dated 18.06.2018, issued by the petitioner/ plaintiff to his earlier counsel, in evidence, was dismissed.
2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants and perused the record.
3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff would contend that the petitioner/ plaintiff is an illiterate person. Therefore, he could not give proper instructions to his counsel to get marked the notice, dated 18.06.2018, issued on his behalf as an exhibit. The Court below erroneously declined to receive the said notice in evidence and ultimately prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order under challenge.
4 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants opposed the relief sought by the petitioner/ plaintiff and contended that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition by confirming the order under challenge.
5 . As per the material placed on record, the original suit was filed in the year 2012. The petitioner/ plaintiff was examined in chief on 01.08.2017. The petitioner/ plaintiff intended to mark a copy of the notice, dated 18.06.2018, as an exhibit, which was issued after filing of the original suit. Hence, it is a belated one. Moreover, copy of the notice, dated 18.06.2018, which is sought to be marked as an exhibit on behalf of the petitioner/ plaintiff, would not create any substantial rights to the petitioner/ plaintiff to the litigation. The Court below elaborately dealt with the contentions now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff and ultimately dismissed the application, holding that the learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff had filed numerous applications on the earlier occasions which were disposed of and that he had come up with the subject application to drag on the matter and delay the trail of the case. The findings of the Court below are based on record. There is no infirmity in the order under challenge. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6 . In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
28 December, 2018 Bvv Bvv
______________________
Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J