at the interlocutory stage , no court should record choice witness statement without giving an opportunity to parties to lead evidence = the procedure adopted by the Court below is not warranted. According to him, even if the documents are to be summoned, recording of evidence on the side of the respondents, without there being any opportunity on the side of the petitioners/plaintiffs is not valid. - The grievance of the Revision Petitioners appears to be that they may not be given an opportunity to adduce evidence, and the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents is likely to prejudice them.- the Court below is advised to take into consideration of the documents produced by the Revenue authorities and not their oral statements. In case, the Court is going to rely on such oral statements, the Revision Petitioners shall also be given an opportunity to adduce evidence on their side before disposal of the application. Further, the Court below is directed to proceed with as per the directions of this court.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.644 of 2013

ORDER:

The Revision Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.346 of 2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore
2.       The suit was one filed for injunction and I.A.No.754 of 2012 was filed for temporary injunction, which was granted and still subsisting. While matter stood thus, I.A.No.859 of 2012 was filed by the defendants to summon the Revenue Authorities for production of the documents.  At that stage, the Court has summoned the Revenue officials and also has recorded the evidence of Revenue Officials in part.
3.       The learned counsel for the Revision petitioners contends that the procedure adopted by the Court below is not warranted.  According to him, even if the documents are to be summoned, recording of evidence on the side of the respondents, without there being any opportunity on the side of the petitioners/plaintiffs is not valid.  Added to that, according to him, an elaborate inquiry by taking evidence need not be considered at this stage and the Court, if it is satisfied, can look into the documents and pass orders without the oral evidence being recorded.  The grievance of the Revision Petitioners appears to be that they may not be given an opportunity to adduce evidence, and the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents is likely to prejudice them.
4.       Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, 
the Court below is advised to take into consideration of the documents produced by the Revenue authorities and not their oral statements. 
 In case, the Court is going to rely on such oral statements, the Revision Petitioners shall also be given an opportunity to adduce evidence on their side before disposal of the application. Further, the Court below is directed to proceed with as per the directions of this court.
5.       With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

____________________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
Dated: 15.02.2013
Note:
Issue wire at the
Cost of the parties.
(B/O)
VSV

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515