Telangana High Court
CRP/5823/2009 of V.Rajya Lakshmi Vs M.Babu Rao on 31 December 2009
JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5823 OF 2009 Friday, the thirty first day of December, Two Thousand and Nine Between V.Rajya Lakshmi and another Petitioners AND M.Babu Rao Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5823 OF 2009
Friday, the thirty first day of December,Two Thousand and Nine Between
V.Rajya Lakshmi and another
AND
Petitioners
M.Babu Rao
Respondent
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIC.R.P. NO. 5823 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.
ORAL ORDER:
Assailing the order dated 30.9.2009 passed in I.A.No. 1762 of 2009 in O.S. No. 170 of 2007 by the learned IIAddl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissingthe petition filed under order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recallthe plaintiff – respondent herein, to cross examine him,the defendants filed this Civil Revision Petition.
The petitioners herein filed the above interlocutoryapplication seeking to recall the plaintiff examined as PW-1. The court below observed that since the respondent herein was not at all cross-examined and with a view toafford an opportunity to cross-examine him, allowed theapplication on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the BarAssociation, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and apart thecosts of Rs.500/- imposed earlier, which were howevernot paid, shall be paid to the respondent herein before14.10.2009. But, however, on 14.10.2009, as the costswere not paid the application was dismissed for non-compliance of the condition.
Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revisionpetition is filed by the defendants.
As can be seen from the order impugned, thoughthe prayer sought for by the petitioners was conditionallygranted, imposing costs on two occasions, the petitionersdid not comply with the conditions. Therefore, havingregard to the facts and circumstances and having regardto the fact that the suit is of the year 2007, the court belowis perfectly justified in dismissing the petition.Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and isaccordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
December 31, 2009MAS
________________________
Justice T. Meena Kumari