Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14248
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2747 OF 2017 Between:
1. Pedasanaganti Venkateswara Rao, S/o.late Parasuramaiah, aged about
59 years, R/o.Flat No.4, Laksfuni Residency, D.No.61-4-5, 3rd Lane, Balajinagar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. Kampa Sambaiah, S/o.Kotaiah, aged About 56 years, Employee, 0/o.
SDOP-II, BSNL, 151 Floor, Buckinghampet Post Office, Governorpet, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: BABUJI GUMMADI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTI CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No.2747 AND 2762 OF 2017
COMMON ORDER:
Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Sri T.V.L.N. Murthy, learned counsel representing Sri Babuji Gummadi, learned counsel for the respondent present. 2. These Revision Petitions are filed against common order dated 07.06.2017 in I.A. No. 267 of 2017 and 268 of 2017 filed by the respondent/defendant under Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) CPC to receive the document shown in the list of the petition and also to recall the defendant/respondent, who was examined as D.W.1 before the Trial Court for the purpose of marking documents filed along with I.A.No. 268 of 2017.
3. The learned Trial Court after considering the contentions, allowed both the applications by receiving documents and permitting D.W.1 to examine further for marking the said documents. The Revision Petitions are filed challenging the said common order of the Trial Court.
4. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the earlier order of this Court delivered in C.R.P.No. 6505 of 2016 dated 17.12.2017. The said Civil Revision Petition was filed by the revision-petitioner against an order of the Trial Court summoning the BSNL authorities to produce certain documents. This Court set-aside the said order with an observation that it is open to respondent i.e., defendant to lead any evidence other than the summoning, to establish his case.
5. It appears that consequent to the said observation, the respondent/defendant filed the applications under the impugned order. Now the Trial Court in its order observed that there can be no impediment in receiving the documents receive subject to proof and relevancy and recalling D.W.1 for the purpose of marking those documents since the plaintiff will have an opportunity to cross-examine D.W.1 on the said documents.
6. In the light of the above observation made by the Learned Trial Court, this Court do not find any irregularity in the order of the Trial Court, and therefore, both the Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed, with an observation that the plaintiff is at liberty to raise objection with regard to relevancy and admissibility of those documents as per law, and also cross- examine D.W.1 with reference to the proposed documents. Suit is of the year 2016. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this common order.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
22nd June, 2023.
RMD
