SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1128

V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
Ponari Venkata Rao S/o. Danda Sai – Appellant
Versus
Katamreddy Malakonda Reddy S/o. Babi Reddy – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T C Krishnan
For the Respondent: P Ganga Rami Reddy

Judgement Key Points
  • Civil Revision Petition No. 1113 of 2019 filed by the 2nd plaintiff (Ponari Venkata Rao) under Article 227 of the Constitution against order dated 31.12.2018 in I.A. No. 237 of 2018 in O.S. No. 107 of 2013. (!) [2000571250002]
  • Suit O.S. No. 107 of 2013 seeks declaration that suit schedule property is a public road for public use and permanent injunction against defendants' interference. [2000571250003]
  • PW.3 (2nd plaintiff) filed examination-in-chief affidavit on 06.12.2017; appeared for cross-examination on 18.07.2018. [2000571250004]
  • During examination, PW.3 admitted signature on affidavit but denied knowledge of its contents; cross-examined by defendant No.1 (applicable to defendant No.2), denying knowledge of suit property details and documents. [2000571250004]
  • Plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 237 of 2018 under Section 151 C.P.C. for permission to file additional examination-in-chief affidavit; dismissed by trial court on 31.12.2018 citing Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. and Sections 137, 138 Evidence Act. [2000571250005]
  • Petitioner's argument: Witness illiterate, time lapse caused denial of contents; no prejudice to opponents if allowed. [2000571250007]
  • Respondents' argument: Trial court order lawful; suit progressed to arguments stage post-evidence; revision seeks delay. [2000571250008]
  • Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. mandates examination-in-chief by affidavit served in advance, followed by cross-examination; purpose is speedy trials, akin to prior oral chief but prepared by counsel. (!)
  • Witness cannot claim ignorance of affidavit contents prepared under Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C.; trial court order neither illegal nor improper. [2000571250010]
  • Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs. [2000571250011] (!)

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the 2nd plaintiff in the suit that is pending before the learned trial Court. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit. Respondent No.4 is 1st plaintiff in the suit. Respondent No.5 is 3rd plaintiff in the suit. In this revision petition, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are shown as not necessary parties.

2. Sri T.C.Krishnan, the learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted arguments.

3. This revision assails the order dated 31.12.2018 of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.237 of 2018 in O.S.No.107 of 2013. By the said order, the application filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by it, the present revision is filed by the 2nd plaintiff in the suit.

4. O.S.No.107 of 2013 is a suit filed by plaintiffs to declare that the suit schedule property is a public road which could be used only for public purposes and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rights of plaintiffs and the public in making use of the suit sche

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top