Telangana High Court
Nanneboina Lakshmi vs Uyyuri Pushpavathi on 1 May, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.R.P.No.303 OF 2025
Between:
Nanneboina Lakshmi & another
... Petitioners
And
Uyyuri Pushpavathi & others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 01.05.2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_________________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2 SN,J
CRP_303_2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.No.303 OF 2025
% 01.05.2025
Between:
# Nanneboina Lakshmi & another
... Petitioners
And
$ Uyyuri Pushpavathi & others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri S.Keshava Rao
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri G.Ravi Chandra Sekhar
? Cases Referred:
3 SN,J
CRP_303_2025
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.No.303 of 2025
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred
seeking prayer as under:
"...to allow the Revision by setting aside the orders passed
in I.A.No.21 of 2025 in M.A.T.O.P.No.92 of 2023 dated
07.01.2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Motor Accidents
Claim Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kothagudem
thereby permitting the petitioners herein to pursue their
proper legal remedy by filing appropriate applications in
the main MATOP and pursue the said matter in proper
perspective and pass such other order..."
2. The Revision Petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 before
Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at
Kothagudem. The respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A. No.21 of 2025
before the Tribunal seeking adjournment of the case for two
weeks. In the petition it is pleaded that on 16.12.2024 their
evidence was closed and that their counsel on record had filed
counter on their behalf without obtaining their signatures
thereon and that on account of the negligence of their counsel on
record, their case till then was not conducted properly and so
they changed their counsel by obtaining no objection on Vakalat
4 SN,J
CRP_303_2025
and therefore for the purpose of pursuing their case properly the
adjournment for two weeks was necessary.
3. The Tribunal by docket order dated 07.01.2025 returned
the petition observing that the case docket reveals that the
evidence of the petitioners/claimants was closed on 11.09.2024
and the case was posted for evidence of Respondent No.3 to
07.10.2024 and that there was no representation for R1 and R2
let alone filing of chief affidavit on their behalf and at that stage
the petition for adjournment could not be entertained.
4. Heard Sri S.Keshava Rao, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and Sri G.Ravi Chandra
Sekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents. Perused the Record.
5. The petitioners filed copy of the case docket showing
entries from 27.09.2023 to 16.12.2024. As can be seen from
the docket the trial commenced on 11.09.2024 and on that day
P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked
and the evidence of petitioners/claimants was closed and case
was posted for evidence of Respondent No.3 to 07.10.2024.
From that date, the case underwent adjournments on
21.10.2024, 06.11.2024, 22.11.2024, 27.11.2024, 11.12.2024
5 SN,J
CRP_303_2025
and 16.12.2024 on which date the evidence of respondent No.3
was closed and the case was posted for arguments to
07.01.2025. From the above docket entries it is quite apparent
that the case was not posted for the evidence of R1 and R2. In
other words, on 07.10.2024 the Tribunal after closing the
evidence of petitioners/claimants straight away posted for
evidence of R3 without giving opportunity for R1 and R2 to
adduce evidence on their behalf.
6. The Tribunal without going through the docket orders
properly in fact erroneously observed that there was no
representation on behalf of the R1 and R2. When the case was
not at all posted for the evidence of R1 and R2 there is no
justification to point out that the chief affidavit of R1 or R2 was
not filed. Apart from this the counter filed on behalf of R1 and R2
does not contain the signatures of R1 and R2 and so the
petitioners R1 and R2 are justified in seeking adjournment for
two weeks to take appropriate steps for proper pursuit of the
case since they had changed their counsel.
7. For the foregone reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned docket order dated
07.01.2025 in I.A.No.21 of 2025 in MATOP No.92 of 2023
6 SN,J
CRP_303_2025
on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-
Cum-Principal District Judge at Kothagudem is set aside
and the matter remanded to the concerned Court for fresh
disposal according to Law. Accordingly, the present Civil
Revision Petition is disposed of. However there shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Dated: 01.05.2025
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
(B/o)Yvkr
