RECALLING OF WITNESSES AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS FOR FURTHER CROSS- EXAMINATION - PARTLY ALLOWED = I.A.No.465 of 2012 is filed to recall PWs.1 and 3 for further cross examination by petitioner/ defendant,I.A.No.466 of 2012 is filed seeking a direction to PW-1 to produce certain documents, viz., (i) land holding document, i.e., pattadar passbook and title deed (ii) crop yielding register and (iii) cash balance account book maintained by Pw-1 for the period from 2005-2006 to 2011-12, I.A.No.481 of 2012 is filed seeking a direction to PW-3 to cause production of land holding documents and certain other documents maintained by PW-3, and I.A.No.482 of 2012 is filed to reopen the suit and permit the petitioner to further cross-examine PWs.1 and 3.= The purpose of recall of PW-1 is to ascertain of his possessing cash balance as on the date of the agreement. PW-1 clarified in the cross-examination that he cannot show any document about his cash balance. This aspect has been highlighted by the trial Court in para (8) of the order impugned in the revisions. Therefore, there is no need of recalling PW-1 for the purpose of ascertaining of his having cash balance as on the date of the agreement. However, the trial Court permitted the petitioner-defendant to cross-examine PW-1 with regard to yielding. The trial Court has taken into consideration the material brought on record and proceeded to grant relief to that extent. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner does not deserve for any further reliefs. 9. With regard to summoning of PW-3 for the purpose of ascertaining the transactions relating to his business, PW-3 has not stated before the Court that he received 2% commission from the plaintiff and entered the same in the account. It is not even elicited from PW-3 that he maintains any account relating to the business transactions. Therefore, there is no purpose in recalling PW-3 to elicit information with regard to his business transactions. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and proceeded to reject the reliefs sought for. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in the revisions warranting interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, all the revisions are dismissed. No costs.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

C. R.P. Nos.291, 292, 293 & 309 of 2013


 (Dated: 07-02-2013)

Between:

Marriboyina Venkateshwarlu
Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh
…Petitioner

             A n d

Kurra Sudershana Rao
Vetapalem(M), Prakasam District

…Respondents































THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

C. R.P. Nos.291, 292, 293 & 309 of 2013


COMMON ORDER:

        These four Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order dated 19-11-2012 passed in I.A.Nos.465, 466, 481 and 482 of 2012 in O.S.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge reopened the suit for limited purpose of cross examining PW-1 with regard to yielding, while negativing the relief sought for with regard to recalling PW-3 and summoning of certain documents.

2.     More precisely; I.A.No.465 of 2012 is filed to recall PWs.1 and 3 for further cross examination by petitioner/ defendant,I.A.No.466 of 2012 is filed seeking a direction to PW-1 to produce certain documents, viz., (i) land holding document, i.e., pattadar passbook and title deed (ii) crop yielding register and (iii) cash balance account book maintained by Pw-1 for the period from 2005-2006 to 2011-12,  I.A.No.481 of 2012 is filed  seeking a direction to PW-3 to cause production of land holding documents and certain other documents maintained by PW-3, and I.A.No.482 of 2012 is filed  to reopen the suit and permit the petitioner to further cross-examine PWs.1 and 3.

3.     The petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2007.  The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.  
The defendant took the plea that the plaintiff had no capacity to purchase the property on the date of the agreement.   Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleas.  
When the suit was coming up for arguments, the petitioner/defendant presented four applications being I.A.Nos.465, 466,481 and 482 of 2012 seeking the prayer stated supra.

4.     The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/defendant failed to make out any valid ground to recall PW-1 and summoning of the documents.  However, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed I.A.No.465 of 2012 to recall PW.1 for cross examination to the limited extent of the yielding he derived from his lands.  Dissatisfied with the rejection of reliefs, the petitioner/defendant has filed these revisions.

5.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff.

6.     It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that PW-1 is required to be further cross-examined   with regard to his capacity to purchase the suit schedule property as on the date of the agreement.   He would further contend that PW-3 is a commission agent and he must be necessarily maintaining some account relating to the business and the said accounts are required to be summoned.  In a way,  it is the contention of the learned counsel  that all the reliefs sought for  by the petitioner/defendant  in I.A.Nos.465, 466, 481 and 482 of 2012 deserve to be allowed.

7.     Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supported the common order impugned in the revisions.

8.     The purpose of recall of PW-1 is to ascertain of his possessing cash balance as on the date of the agreement.  
PW-1 clarified in the cross-examination that he cannot show any document about his cash balance. 
This aspect has been highlighted by the trial Court in para (8) of the order impugned in the revisions.   
Therefore, there is no need of recalling PW-1 for the purpose of ascertaining of his having cash balance as on the date of the agreement.   

However, the trial Court permitted the petitioner-defendant to cross-examine PW-1 with regard to yielding. 
The trial Court has taken into consideration the material brought on record and proceeded to grant relief to that extent.    
In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner does not deserve for any further reliefs. 
9.     With regard to summoning of PW-3 for the purpose of ascertaining the transactions relating to his business, 
PW-3 has not stated before the Court that he received 2% commission from the plaintiff and entered the same in the account.  
It is not even elicited from PW-3 that he maintains any account relating to the business transactions.  
Therefore, there is no purpose in recalling PW-3 to elicit information with regard to his business transactions.  
The trial Court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and proceeded to reject the reliefs sought for.  
 I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in the revisions warranting interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10.    Accordingly, all the revisions are dismissed. No costs.

_____________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt.07-02-2013

RAR

















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