Or.26, 9 and sec.151 C.P.C. - appointment of advocate-commissioner for the purpose of recording cross examination as the petitioner not able to be move from bed - No documentary evidence to show his aliment - lower court correctly dismissed the I.A. = PETITIONER RESPONDENT P.RAMABRAHMAM VS DVV GNANA SURYA KUMARI = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=305&year=2013

Or.26, 9 and sec.151 C.P.C. - appointment of advocate-commissioner for the purpose of recording cross examination as the petitioner not able to be move from bed - No documentary evidence to show his aliment - lower court correctly dismissed the I.A. = 
IA  No.223 of 2012 under Order 26, Rule 3, r/w.Section 151 CPC to appoint advocate-Commissioner to record his evidence and also to mark documents, which was dismissed against which the present civil revision petition is filed. =
Though the petitioner has stated that he has undergone by-pass heart operations twice and suffering with various ailments, no medical record was filed by the petitioner. The RC is of the year 2008.  In the absence of any acceptable evidence adduced, the relief sought for the petitioner cannot granted.     In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the impugned order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court.
CRP 305 / 2013

CRPSR 1754 / 2013

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
P.RAMABRAHMAM  VSDVV GNANA SURYA KUMARI
PET.ADV. : TENNETI PRABHU DASURESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  HYDERABAD


HON’BLE  SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH

  

CRP  NO.305 of 2013



DATED 8-02-2013

NRG/










HON’BLE  SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH


CRP  NO.305 of 2013



DATED 8-02-2013


BETWEEN:


P. Ramabrahmam

                                                                                                            ……Petitioner
And

                                               
DVV Gnana Surya Kumari
                                                                        ……Respondent





































CRP  NO.305 of 2013



ORDER:

        The petitioner is  a tenant of the respondent.  RC No.227 of 2008 on the file of Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, was filed by the respondent-landlady for eviction.  The petitioner filed the instant IA  No.223 of 2012 under Order 26, Rule 3, r/w.Section 151 CPC to appoint advocate-Commissioner to record his evidence and also to mark documents, which was dismissed against which the present civil revision petition is filed.
        It was  the case of the petitioner that due to ill-health he had to undergo by-pass heart operation twice and the doctors advised him to take complete bed rest and that he is also suffering from old age ailments like hypertension and diabetics. It was also stated that due to un-seasonal weather and allergy he could not move from house and subject himself to cross examination and also mark documents. Counter affidavit has been filed disputing all the averments made by the petitioner. It was stated in the counter that in fact 3rd parties are induct in the subject property and the 3rd parties are paying huge rents to the petitioner and the IA has been filed to drag on the matter.  
        Though the petitioner has stated that he has undergone by-pass heart operations twice and suffering with various ailments, no medical record was filed by the petitioner. The RC is of the year 2008.  In the absence of any acceptable evidence adduced, the relief sought for the petitioner cannot granted.     In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the impugned order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court. The civil revision petition is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                                                          ______________________
                                                                                                V. ESWARAIAH, J    
Dated: 8-2-2013
Nrg.





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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.