Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.SREENIVASA REDDY
Sudha Madan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Chinna Venkata Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Annareddy Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o. Venkata Narapu Reddy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the suit and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the reopening of evidence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of procedural irregularities. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. setting aside the trial court's order due to affidavit issues. (Para 12) |
| 5. final order allowing plaintiff to file for reopening evidence. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
The petitioner/defendant filed the present Revision Petition, challenging the Order dated 21.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.204 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2020 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby and whereunder, petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff to reopen the suit on his behalf to file affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of K.Padmanabha Reddy, who is scribe of Ex.A1-promissory note, was allowed.
2. Petitioner is the respondent/defendant, and respondent is the petitioner/plaintiff, in I.A.No.204 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2020. Parties in the present Revision Petition are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed in the suit.
3. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.32 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional District and Ses
A party must submit properly executed affidavits to reopen cases; irregularities can lead to setting aside of trial court orders.
Reopening evidence at the argument stage requires exceptional circumstances, which were not demonstrated by the petitioner, undermining the application to summon attestors.
The court established that the power to recall witnesses and seek expert opinions must be used to clarify ambiguities, not to remedy evidentiary deficiencies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to allow or reject belated applications under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lies with the Court, and no hard and fast rule....
The main legal point established is that the procedural rules governing witness examination, specifically Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. and Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not p....
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
