Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S. Rahamthulla Waseem vs G. Saleem Basha on 5 September, 2024
APHC010807382018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6361/2018
Between:
S. Rahamthulla Waseem ...PETITIONER
AND
G Saleem Basha ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VARUN BYREDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. Y JAYA RAJU
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.No.6361 of 2018
O R D E R:
The present revision is filed against the order dated
11.10.2018 in I.A.No.1081 of 2018 in O.S.No.449 of 2012 passed
by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.
2. Petitioner is the defendant. The respondent/plaintiff filed
suit for eviction. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1081 of 2018
to direct the defendant to put his signatures in English and also
his Left Thumb Impression (LTI) to enable the Court to compare
the same with signatures and LTI in Ex.A.1, A.2 and A.8 receipts.
3. The petitioner/defendant filed counter contending that after
the case was reserved for judgment, the same was reopened on
27.09.2018 for the purpose of advancing arguments pursuant to
an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff. On 03.10.2018,
the respondent/plaintiff filed additional chief affidavit of P.W.1
without there being application to reopen the evidence of plaintiff
and to recall him. After the case was adjourned on two
occasions, the present application was filed. It was pleaded that
the petitioner/defendant is incapable of signing in English and
therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. It was also
contended that comparison cannot be done with Xerox copies.
4. The trial Court allowed the I.A., directing the
petitioner/defendant to appear before the Court to mark his thumb
impression and to sign in English in the presence of the Court.
Hence, the present civil revision petition is filed.
5. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Y.Jaya Raju, learned counsel for the respondent.
6. This Court is of the opinion that when the plea of the
petitioner/defendant is that he is unable to sign in English,
allowing the application and directing the petitioner/defendant to
sing in English is unsustainable. If the trial Court is of the opinion
that the petitioner/defendant can sign in English but he is
intentionally avoiding to do so, it is an aspect to be considered
while appreciating the evidence on record.
7. Coming to the aspect of thumb impression, the case was
reserved for judgment and reopened to enable the counsel for the
plaintiff to submit their arguments. The scope of reopening the
suit which was reserved for judgment is only to enable the
respondent/plaintiff to submit arguments only. Therefore, the
application per se could not be entertained.
8. Even otherwise, there is no explanation in the application
filed by the respondent/plaintiff as to why such a step could not be
taken while the trial was going on. In the absence of any
explanation for the delay, the trial Court should not have
entertained the explanation.
8. Therefore, the order of the trial Court dated 11.10.2018 in
I.A.No.1081 of 2018 in O.S.No.449 of 2012 is set aside and the
civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a
sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: .09.2024
KLP
