Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Nalla Venkata Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Vankdoth Vinoda – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed suit for title and injunction. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondent claims ownership by un-registered deed. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. overview of the suit and claims. (Para 7) |
| 4. respondent opposes reopening case for additional witness. (Para 9) |
| 5. court rejects reopening of case due to procedural non-compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 6. arguments regarding the reopening of evidence. (Para 12) |
| 7. civil revision petition dismissed; order upheld. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
(N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.)
Aggrieved by the order 10.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.386 of 2024 in O.S.No.145 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. Sri Aravala Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. In view of the nature of relief sought in this Civil Revision Petition, notice to respondents is revoked by invoking the power of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
4. The petitioner and respondents in the present CRP are plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 respectively in O.S.No.145 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.
5. As per the averments made in the affidavit it is
Belated applications to reopen a suit for additional evidence must demonstrate sufficient grounds; otherwise, they impede timely proceedings and may jeopardize the fairness of the trial.
The trial court has discretion to deny the introduction of documents not existing at the time of the suit and lacking relevance to current proceedings.
Engaging a new counsel cannot be a ground for reopening evidence and filling up lacunae in the case.
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....
The reopening of evidence and recalling of witnesses must not be used to fill gaps in previously recorded testimony, and parties cannot introduce evidence that contradicts their earlier admissions.
Procedural rules serve to advance justice, and denial of evidence crucial for adjudication violates the fair opportunity afforded to parties in a civil 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
