Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Ramzia Bi Died – Appellant
Versus
B.V. Lakshminarasamma – Respondent
ORDER :
(K. MANMADHA RAO, J.)
As the issue involved in all the civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.
2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.114 of 2013, which was filed by the plaintiffs before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool (for short “the trial Court”) for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction for removal of the constructions made by defendant No.6 in the plaint schedule open site. The present impugned Interlocutory applications were filed before the trial Court viz., (i) I.A No.616 of 2024 in O.S.No.114 of 2013 was filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) 3 and Section 151 of CPC seeking to receive documents by condoning the delay and mark the same on behalf of the petitioners/defendants; (ii) I.A.No.615 of 2024 in O.S.No.114 of 2013 was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall DW.2 for the purpose of marking the documents shown in I.A.No.616 of 2024; and (iii) I.A No.614 of 2024 in O.S No.114 of 2023 was filed under Section 151 CPC to reopen the petitioners/defendants evidence to enable them to let in evidence on their beh
The court upheld the trial Court's dismissal of applications to introduce documents due to lack of valid grounds for delay, affirming the importance of timely evidence submission under procedural rul....
Court emphasized the importance of timely evidence submission in civil proceedings, stating that late applications require valid reasons, and upheld the trial court's decisions as free from jurisdict....
Timely submission of documents and the requirement for sufficient cause to be shown for their delayed filing are crucial principles in civil procedure.
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
Order XI Rule 1(4) and Order XI Rule 1(5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and ....
A person who has knowledge of the facts stated in an affidavit is competent to swear an affidavit and file it in support of an application, even if the person is not a party to the suit.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
