Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
G. Madhusudan Rao – Appellant
Versus
Ammireddy Srinivas Reddy – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The revision petition was filed against an order dismissing an application for the return of original documents (!) (!) .
The case involves a dispute over the return of original documents, including a title deed and a mortgage deed, which were filed in a pending suit that was later settled out of court and dismissed (!) (!) .
The petitioner, who is the owner of the property, had executed a mortgage deed in favor of the respondent, who was the plaintiff in the suit (!) .
The petitioner requested the return of the original documents after the suit was settled and dismissed, claiming ownership and entitlement to the documents (!) (!) .
The trial court dismissed the application, citing that only the party who filed the documents could request their return, and did not consider the petitioner’s ownership of the property (!) (!) .
The petitioner’s counsel argued that, as the owner of the property, the petitioner is entitled to the original documents, and relied on legal principles and judgments supporting the right of property owners to reclaim their documents (!) (!) .
The respondent’s counsel contended that since the documents were produced by the plaintiff in the suit, only the plaintiff was entitled to their custody and return (!) .
The appellate court observed that the original documents were produced in the suit by the respondent, but since the dispute was settled and the respondent was not the owner of the property, the petitioner, as the owner, was entitled to the documents (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing the application without properly considering the petitioner’s ownership rights and directed the documents to be returned to the petitioner upon substitution with certified copies (!) .
The revision petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to return the original documents to the petitioner, closing any pending miscellaneous petitions (!) (!) .
These points summarize the case’s factual background, legal issues, and the court’s reasoning and decision.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2384 of 2023
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.605 of 2020 in O.S.No.551 of 2019 by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking for return of original documents was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. It is endorsed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1, respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the defendant Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are that upon request of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has arranged a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as loan to the petitioner on 24.05.2012 and the petitioner executed a simple mortgage deed vide document No.1410 of 2012, dated 24.05.2012. Since the petitioner defaulted in repayment of the amount, the above suit was filed. Respondent No.1 filed a suit vide
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
