Telangana High Court
CRP/2790/2022 of M/s. Sunkara Kotech Vs M/s. Srilatha Raghuram Cotton Industries and 3 others on 29 December 2023
,)1::li' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2790 and 2810 OF 2022 CRP.No.2790/2022 Petition under Atticle 227 of the Constitution
IN THE HIGH COURT [FOR ][THE STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA ][AT ][HYDERABAD]
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH [DAY ][OF ][DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND [AND TWENTY THREE]PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE [K. SUJANA]CIVIL REVISION PETITION [NO:][ 27][90 ][and ][2810 ][OF 2022]
CRP.No.2790/2022
Petition under Atticle 227 of [the Constitution ][of ][lndia, to aggrieved ][by ][the]Order and Decree Dt.14.11.2022 [passed ][in ][I ][A No.439 ][of ][2022 ][in ][O S No ][36 ][of]2017 on the file of the ll-Addl. [District ][Judge ][at Warangal.]
Between:
M/s. Sunkara Kotech, Chlntha [Nekkonda Village ][rep. ][by ][its ][Proprietol ]Qu{91aMadnavi, W/o. Ramakoteswar [Rao, age ][49 ][yeais, ][Occ ][Business, ][R/o ][H'No ][20-5-]iZa, Contractors Colony, [Palvoncha ][Village and ][Mandal, Kothgudem District']
...Revision Petitioners/Plaintiff.
AND
'1. M/s. Srilatha Raghuram Cotton lndustries' Chintha Nekkonda R-ep' by itsFr.tn"r" Vadlam"uri [Rukmini, ][W/o. ][Krishna Rao, Age 52 ][years, ][Occ: Business,]R/o.H.No. 12-84, Saireddypalle Village, [Chintha Nekkonda ][Village, ][Palvoncha]Village and Mandal, Warangal [District.]Fr.tn"r" Vadlam"uri [Rukmini, ][W/o. ][Krishna Rao, Age 52 ][years, ][Occ: Business,]R/o.H.No. 12-84, Saireddypalle Village, [Chintha Nekkonda ][Village, ][Palvoncha]Village and Mandal, Warangal [District.]
2. M/s. Srilatha Raghuram Cotton [lndustries, Chintha ][Nekkonrli ][Rep. by ][its]Partners Vadlamiuri Krishna [Rao, ][S/o. Shiva ][Ramaiah, ][Age ][55 ][y0ears' ][Occ:]Business, R/o.H.No.12-84, [Saireddypalle ][Village, Chintha ][Nekkonda Village,]Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Warangal [District.]Partners Vadlamiuri Krishna [Rao, ][S/o. Shiva ][Ramaiah, ][Age ][55 ][y0ears' ][Occ:]Business, R/o.H.No.12-84, [Saireddypalle ][Village, Chintha ][Nekkonda Village,]Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Warangal [District.]
3. Vadlamuri Vr.laya [Bhargav, ]S/o. [Krishna Rao, ][Age ][31 years, ][Occ: ][Business,]R/o.H,No.t2184, Saireddypalle Village, [Chintha ][Nekkonda ][Village, ][Palvoncha]Village and Mandal, Warangal District.R/o.H,No.t2184, Saireddypalle Village, [Chintha ][Nekkonda ][Village, ][Palvoncha]Village and Mandal, Warangal District.
4. Vadlamuri Pujitha, Wo. Rahul, Age 33 [years, ]Occ: [Business, ][Rl/o. ][H. ][No.12-84,]Saireddypalle Village, Chintha [Nekkonda ][Village, ][Palvoncha Village and]Mandal, Warangal District.Saireddypalle Village, Chintha [Nekkonda ][Village, ][Palvoncha Village and]Mandal, Warangal District.
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ][that ][in ][the circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the [High Court may be ][pleased to]grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.36 of 2017 on [the ][file of ][the ][ll-]Addl. District Judge at Warangal, [pending disposal ][of ][the ][main ][Civil ][Revision]Petition.
,{i..:j, ,0,r .l,Li:: 'i
M.t.
+,, ti,ir fl';,$#,+.
Bffi
.t
-2-
QRP.No.2810/2022
Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution [of ][lndia, ][to aggrieved by ][the]Order and Decree dt.14.1 1.2022 [passed ][in ][1.A.No.440 ][of ][2022 ][in ][O.S.No.36 of]2017 on the file of the ll-Addl. District Judge [at ][Warangal.]
&,#*
,tiJ,l :I
Between:
M/s. Sunkara Kotech, Chintha Nekkonda [Village ][rep. ][by ][its ][Proprietor ][Sunkara]Madhavi, W/o. Ramakoteswar Rao, age [49 ][years, Occ ][Business, ][R/o. ][H ][No.20-5-]124, Contractors Colony, Palvoncha Village [and ][Mandal, ][Kothgudem District]
... Revision Petitioners/Plaintiff
AND
1. M/s. Srilatha Raghuram Cotton lndustries, Chintha [Nekkonda Rep. ][by its]Partners Vadlamuri Rukmini, W/o. Krishna [Rao, ][Age ][52 years, ][Occ: ][Business']R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha [Nekkonda ][Village, ][Palvoncha]Village and ltrlandal, Warangal District,Partners Vadlamuri Rukmini, W/o. Krishna [Rao, ][Age ][52 years, ][Occ: ][Business']R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha [Nekkonda ][Village, ][Palvoncha]Village and ltrlandal, Warangal District,
2. M/s. Srilatha Raghuram Collon lndustries, Chintha [Nekkonda Rep. by ][its]Partners Vadlamuri Krishna Rao, S/o. Shiva [Ramaiah, ]Age [55 y0ears, Occ:]Business, R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha [Nekkonda Village,]Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Warangal District.Partners Vadlamuri Krishna Rao, S/o. Shiva [Ramaiah, ]Age [55 y0ears, Occ:]Business, R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha [Nekkonda Village,]Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Warangal District.
3. Vadlamuri Vijaya Bhargav, S/o. Krishna Rao, Age 31 [years, ]Occ: [Business,]R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, PalvonchaVillage and lvlandal, Warangal District.R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, PalvonchaVillage and lvlandal, Warangal District.
4. Vadlamuri Pujitha, W/o- Rahul, Age 33 [years, ]Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12-84,Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, Palvoncha Village andfv'landal, Warangal District.Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, Palvoncha Village andfv'landal, Warangal District.
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased togrant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the ll-Addl.District Judge at Warangal, pending disposal of the main civil revision petition and.,.,pass Counsel for the Petitionerin both the Petititons :SRl. CHAVALI RAMANAND, ADVOCATE
Counsel for the Respondentsin both the Petititons : None Appeared.
ir,
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
f.:_ {.tr fi.^!:f,,',1$H{r: ['Et:';]i r :'lIE',.tIl .\
i .-tr,l.,r ii [i:r]*'#i,i': ?,. t
*::
'' ii
THE HONOURABLE SMT. [JUSTICE ][K. ][SUJANA]cL REVISION PETITION [No.2][790 ][AND ][28lO ][OF ][2022]
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.
COMMON ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition [Nos. ][279O ][and 2810 of ][2022]are filed aggrieved [by ]the [orders, ][dated ][14. ][1l'2022 ][passed ][in]I.A.Nos.439 and [44O ][of ][2022 ][respectively ][in ][O ][S'No'36 ][of]2OL7 , on the Iile of [the ][lI ][Additional ][District ][Judge ][at]the Court [below ][has ][dismissed ][both ][the]Warangal, whereby said applications.
2. The petitioner in both [the IA's ][is the ][plaintiff ][in ][the ][said]suits. He hled [O.S. ][No. ][36 of ][2077 ][seeking ][specilic]performance of contract. During [the ][pendency ][of ][the ][suit, ][the]petitioner hled I.A. No. [439 ][of ][2022 ][under ][order ][XVIII Rule ][17]r/w Section 151 of [C.P.C. ][to ][recall ][PW.1 ][for ][the ][purpose of]documents [and ][cross ][examination' ][The petitioner]marking of filed this petition stating [that ][he ][came ][to ][know ][about ][the]documents executed between [Andhra Bank, ][Shambunipet]Branch, Warangal [and ][V. ][Krishna ][Rao ][& ][others recently ][and]that the said documents [are ][crucial ][for proper ][adjudication ][of]the case. As such, [prayed ][to ][receive ][the ][said documents ][and]recall PW. 1 for marking [the ][said ][documents']
3. The petitioner petitioner also I'iled I.A. No. 44O of 2O22 44O of 2O22 of 2O22 2O22 uncler orderVII R. 14(3) r/w Section 15 i of C.P.C. praying to receive thedocuments filed along with the petition The petitioner petitioner also I'iled I.A. No. 44O of 2O22 44O of 2O22 of 2O22 2O22 uncler order
4. The respondents filed counter stating that there is delayin fili{S the documents, which r,vas not explained and thereIare nd bonahdes in the petition. Hence, prayed the Court todismiss the petition.
5. Considering the contention of the petitioner and respondents, the trial Court dismissed both applications,stating that the documents are of the year 2017, whereas, thepetitions are filed in the year 2022, witl:rout explaining properreasons for the delay.petitions are filed in the year 2022, witl:rout explaining properreasons for the delay.
6ggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, these CivilRevisin Petitions are filed.
7. Heard Sri. C. Sri. C. Ramanand, learned counsel learned counsel for thepetitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Heard Sri. C. Sri. C. Ramanand, learned counsel learned counsel for the
8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, thedocuments which were requested before the trial Court for thepurpose of marking and cross examination are very crucial for L
the di posal Sof the suit and the [petitioner ][recently ][came ][to]iknow about those documents.
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the [view that]though there is delay in frling the [documents, ][which ][are very]crucial for the disposal of the suit, to [meet ][the ][ends ][of]justice, a fair chance can be given to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, both the Civil [Revision ][petitions ][are ][allowed]settinf aside the orders dated 14.ll.2022 [in ][I.A.Nos.439 and]440 0]f 2022 in o.S.No.36 0f 2017, on the [frle ][of the ][II]" [Additional ][District ][Judge ][at ][Warangal. ][The ][trial ][Court ][is]directed to consider the applications [f,rled ][for ][recalling ][the]petitioner and receiving the documents and [pass appropriate]order in accordance with law. [However, ][both the ][parties ][are]directed to cooperate with the trial Court [for ][early disposal ][of]the suit. No order as to costs.
Pendingmiscellaneous applications, if any, in [these]revlslon petition, shall stand [closed.]
Sd/-Motrd. tsmaitASSISTANT [REQISTRAR]c'l)-- //TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The ll Addl. [District Judge at ][Warangal']
2. One CC to [SRl. CHAVALI ][RAIVANAND, ][Advocate ][[OPUC]]
3. Two CD [coPies]
HIGH COURT
DATED:2911212023
COMMON ORDER
CRP.Nos.2790 & 2810 of 2022
Both the CRPs are Allowed.
afka5tr"
;i
I
I
.ii
:^.:,.'
HE [SI47]6oo2 3 [ilAB ][2ll2l]tDcsPn-lt-"'-t -t 4,.:,.:.tl iIj
1. 't
i:..\
A";**",,,\,.
ffi,
. !.!
)
J