Sec. 45 of Evidence Act = The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner and respondent went to a Doctor for counselling, the certificate in question was managed to be given stating that he is suffering from passive-aggressive type of personality disorder. Therefore, he filed aforementioned Interlocutory Application for examination of both physical and mental condition of him and respondent by a team of Doctors and the same was dismissed by the Court below. = Revision was closed with a direction to receive and to decide whether the certificate is relevant or not ? = PETITIONER RESPONDENT S.B.V. CHANDRA SHEKAR, HYD VS S. ANILA SUSHMA, E.G.DIST = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=301&year=2013

Sec. 45 of Evidence Act  = The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner and respondent went to a Doctor for counselling, the certificate in question was managed to be given stating that he is suffering from passive-aggressive type of personality disorder. Therefore, he filed aforementioned Interlocutory Application for examination of both physical and mental condition of him and respondent by a team of Doctors and the same was dismissed by the Court below. = Revision was closed with a direction to receive and to decide whether the certificate is relevant or not ? =
application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to examine him by the expert doctors (team of Government Doctors or nominated by the Medical Board of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad), and submit a report both physical and mental condition of him and respondent, was dismissed. =
Whether the certificate in question and the medical reports are relevant or not and whether they can be received as evidence are the matters, which are required to be decided by the trial Court during the trial of the case.  
It is needless to observe that those medical certificates/reports can be received as evidence subject to relevancy, admissibility and proof.

7.       With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

8.       In consequence, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

CRP 301 / 2013

CRPSR 1761 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
S.B.V. CHANDRA SHEKAR, HYD  VSS. ANILA SUSHMA, E.G.DIST
PET.ADV. : RAJA RAAMRESP.ADV. : DATTANAND
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  EAST GODAVARI


 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU


CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.301 of 2013


ORDER:
           
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2012 in I.A.No.1066 of 2012 in H.M.O.P.No.50 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, whereunder and whereby application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to examine him by the expert doctors (team of Government Doctors or nominated by the Medical Board of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad), and submit a report both physical and mental condition of him and respondent, was dismissed. 
2.       Respondent is the legally wedded wife of petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 30.11.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs.  Petitioner and respondent were classmates and good friends while studying at Mamatha Medical College, Khammam.  According to the petitioner, family members of respondent forced him for the alliance.  But, subsequently family members of respondent, hatched up plans and managed a Doctor to get a false certificate declaring that he is suffering from mental disorder and filed the H.M.O.P. for divorce.

3.       The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner and respondent went to a Doctor for counselling, the certificate in question was managed to be given stating that he is suffering from passive-aggressive type of personality disorder. Therefore, he filed aforementioned Interlocutory Application for examination of both physical and mental condition of him and respondent by a team of Doctors and the same was dismissed by the Court below.
4.       Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Doctor, who gave the certificate in question, has not examined the petitioner personally and the petitioner and respondent went to the doctor for counselling but not for any medical examination and therefore, such certificate has no relevance. 

5.       On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that both petitioner and respondent went to the Doctor for counselling and after thorough examination only, the Doctor gave the certificate in question and that there are certain other medical reports available in support of the case of respondent. 

6.       Whether the certificate in question and the medical reports are relevant or not and whether they can be received as evidence are the matters, which are required to be decided by the trial Court during the trial of the case.  
It is needless to observe that those medical certificates/reports can be received as evidence subject to relevancy, admissibility and proof.

7.       With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

8.       In consequence, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

                                                            ____________________
JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
22nd February, 2013

GHN

 

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.