Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Rahamathulla Waseem vs G Saleem Basha on 5 September, 2024
APHC010807402018
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: 6364/2018
Between:
S Rahamathulla 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.6364 of 2018
O R D E R:
The present revision is filed against the order dated
11.10.2018 in I.A.No.1080 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.1080 of 2018
under Order 8 Rule 1(A) C.P.C., to condone delay in filing the
petition schedule document and receive the same and marked as
Exhibit.
3. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that a postal
acknowledgment of the year 2010 wherein the petitioner signed in
English was traced recently and therefore, the said document is
relevant for the purpose of the comparison of the signatures/Left
Thumb Impression of petitioner/defendant.
4. 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 an additional chief affidavit of P.W.1
without there being an 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 also pleaded
that the above application cannot be maintained without there
being any application to reopen and recall the plaintiff's side
evidence.
5. The trial Court allowed the I.A., as no prejudice would be
caused to the petitioner/defendant. Hence, the present civil
revision petition is filed.
6. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Y.Jaya Raju, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. This Court is of the opinion that when the case was
reserved for judgment and was reopened only to enable the
counsel for the plaintiff to submit their arguments, it is not open to
the respondent/plaintiff to file applications to re-open evidence
and receive documents. Therefore, the application per se could
not be entertained.
8. Even otherwise, there is no proper explanation in the
application filed by the respondent/plaintiff as to when the postal
acknowledgement document of the year 2010 was traced. As
per the plaint, the lease agreement between the parties is from
01.01.2011 onwards and there is no reference of any transaction
between the parties prior to 2011 in the plaint. The application
also does not mention in what context, the postal
acknowledgment was received from the petitioner/defendant. In
the absence of any explanation of these aspects, the trial Court
could not have allowed the application when the suit was
reopened only to hear the arguments of the Respondent/plaintiff.
9. Therefore, the order of the trial Court 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
