Or. 7, rule 14 C.P.C. = No amount of evidence is allowed to be adduced with out pleadings ,Document petition for receiving a will deed with out pleadings was rightly rejected by lower court = MAKAM SUBBARAYUDU VS MAKAM BALA SUBBAIAH & 4 OTHER = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=1811&year=2013

Or. 7, rule 14 C.P.C. = No amount of evidence is allowed to be adduced with out pleadings ,Document petition for receiving a will deed with out pleadings was rightly rejected by lower court =
request for production of the Will was declined on the ground that neither in the plaint nor in the chief examination affidavit of the petitioner, examined as PW-1, was there any mention of the said Will executed by his father. 
The law is well settled that any amount of evidence in the absence of pleadings would have no relevance.  As the petitioner failed to plead the existence of the Will in question, it has no relevance in the suit.  Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner.
CRP 1811 / 2013
CRPSR 10316 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
MAKAM SUBBARAYUDU  VSMAKAM BALA SUBBAIAH & 4 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : VEERA REDDYRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  KURNOOL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
C.R.P.No.1811 of 2013
Date : 3-6-2013
Between:
Makam Subbarayudu                                                    .. Petitioner

And

Makam Bala Subbaiah
and others                                                                      .. Respondents




Counsel for petitioner : Sri P. Veera Reddy
Counsel for respondents : --

The Court made the following:

ORDER:
          This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 21-2-2013 in I.A.No.98/2013 in O.S.No.45/2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, whereby the said I.A. filed by the petitioner for receiving Will dated 2-3-1991 purportedly executed by his father, was dismissed.
          The order under revision shows that the request for production of the Will was declined on the ground that neither in the plaint nor in the chief examination affidavit of the petitioner, examined as PW-1, was there any mention of the said Will executed by his father. 
          Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that even though there was no reference to the Will in the pleadings and the affidavit of the petitioner, respondent No.2 in his deposition has made a reference to the said Will which led to the necessity of producing the same by the petitioner. 
          I am afraid, this submission cannot be accepted, for, even this explanation which is putforth by the learned counsel before this Court has not been found in the affidavit filed before the lower Court in I.A.No.98/2013.  The law is well settled that any amount of evidence in the absence of pleadings would have no relevance.  As the petitioner failed to plead the existence of the Will in question, it has no relevance in the suit.  Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner.
          For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
          As a sequel, CRPMP No.2432/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 3-6-2013
                             
AM

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.

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

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.