Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S.Athmalingam vs C.Harinath Reddy on 23 August, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010087812024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3206]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 514/2024
Between:
S.athmalingam ...PETITIONER
AND
C Harinath Reddy ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K V L NARASIMHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. S V MUNI REDDY
The Court made the following Order:
Heard Sri K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.200 of 2014 in the
Court of the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Chittoor District, for
permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent herein, over
the plaint schedule property. The said plaint schedule property is said to
be a passage between the property of the petitioner and the respondent.
RRR,J
The respondent, in support of his claim over the suit schedule property,
had traced the title over the land through various transactions culminating
in his ownership and possession over the suit schedule property.
3. The petitioner filed a written statement tracing the flow of
title, in his favour, over the suit schedule property. Apart from this, both
sides relied upon the judgments of various Courts said to have been
passed in relation to this property.
4. After completion of the evidence of the respondent, the
petitioner herein examined himself as DW.1 and had also examined one
Sri G. Ramakrishnamma Naidu as DW.2. The evidence of DW.2 was that
he had filed a suit bearing O.S.No.1025 of 2004 on the file of the Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor against Sri J. Krishnama Naidu, J. Venkatesh
Chowdary and Chinnamma for an injunction as they were interfering with
his usage of the said passage and that the suit was decreed on
15.03.2010. It was suggested, by the counsel for the respondent that Sri
J. Krishnama Naidu was the uncle of DW.2 and the ex parte decree was
obtained in collusion with Sri J. Krishnama Naidu. However, DW.2
continued to assert, in his cross-examination, that there was a common
passage, which was being used by him also.
5. After the evidence of DW.2 had been closed, the petitioner
had moved I.A.No.538 of 2023 and I.A.No.539 of 2023 before the trial
RRR,J
Court. In I.A.No.538 of 2023, the petitioner sought leave of the Court for
receiving additional documents. This application was allowed by the trial
Court on 18.12.2023 observing that mere receipt of documents does not
prejudice the respondent and the admissibility etc., of the documents can
be looked into at the time of the documents being tendered for being
marked.
6. I.A.No.539 of 2023 was filed to recall DW.2 for the purpose
of marking the additional documents filed in I.A.No.538 of 2023. The
additional documents that are now sought to be marked through DW.2
are - copy of the order in I.A.No.538 of 2023 in O.S.No.200 of 2014; copy
of a registered deed of settlement bearing No.3197 of 2001; copy of a
registered partition deed bearing No.2323 of 1990; copy of a registered
settlement deed bearing No.3518 of 1981; and copy of a registered deed
of sale bearing No.172 of 1973, for the purpose of demonstrating that
DW.2 also had a claim over the said common passage.
7. This application was resisted by the respondent and the trial
Court dismissed the said application by an order dated 09.02.2024.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.
8. A perusal of the plaint and the written statement show that
the claim of the respondent was that he was the owner of the suit
schedule common passage while the petitioner herein also claimed
RRR,J
ownership over the said passage. There is no pleading in the written
statement about any claim of DW.2 over the said land. In the absence of
any such pleading, it would not be open for the petitioner to adduce
evidence in relation to the facts which have not been pleaded or placed
before the Court.
9. For these reasons, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, this civil revision
petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J
Js.
RRR,J
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.514 of 2024
23rd August, 2024
Js.
