Pentyala Nageswar Rao v. Pakanati Seetharami Reddy
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: G SRI DEVI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-18. Pentyala Nageswar Rao v. Pakanati Seetharami Reddy. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECE[/BER TWO Ti. IOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 609 AND 614 OF 2020 Petitions under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia Aggrieved by the Orders dated 1310212020 in l. A. Nos. 126 and 127 in O. S. NO. 16512014 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Khammam. Between: Pentyala Nageswar Rao, s/o Venkataramaiah aged about 69 years, occ. Business r/o H. No. 11-10-7751101D, Raparthi Nagar Khammam City and District. . ,. PETITIONER (PETTTTTONER/DEFENDANT AND Pakanati Seetharami Reddy, s/o Basvi Reddy aged about 70 years, occ. Business, r/o H. No. 2-13812, Nayyudupeta village Khammam Rural l\,4andal, Khammam District. ...
RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT/PLAI NTIFF) lA NO: 1 OF 2020 in CRP 609/2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the order in l. A. No. 127 of 2020 in O. S. No. 165 of 2014 dl. 13-2-2020 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge at Khammam. lA NO: 2 OF 2020 in CRP 609/2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant of all '165 further proceedings in o. s. No. of 2014 on the file of the I Addi. District Judge at Khammam, pending disposal of the C. R. P. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 in C. R. P. 61412020 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in o. s. No.
165 of 2014 on the file of the I Addi. District Judge at Khammam, pending disposal of the C. R. P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARUNAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI The Court made the fotlowing: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE DEVI JUSTICE G. SRI C. R. P. Nos. 609 and 614 of 2020 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common order of the learned I-Additional District Judge, Klrammarn, r-latecl 13. 02,2020, dismissing I. A. Nos. 126 and 727 of 2020 in O. S. No. 165 of 2014 filed by the petitioner/defendant, who is the revision petitioner herein. The facts, in succinct, are as under: The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff, filed O. S. No. 165 of 201,4 agairrst the petitioner/ defendant for recovery of Rs. 45,62,380/- along with interest @ 24% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation basing on a security boncl alleged to have been executecl by the petitioner/ clefendant in his favour.
When the said suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner/ defendant filed the above two Interlocutory Applications, one for re-opening the suit and another for issuing summons to the District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department, Nehru Nagar, Khammam, to give evidence. The respondent/plaintiff filed counters contesting the claims of the petitioner/ defendant, inter alia, contending that the aforesaid suit was coming up for arguments and at this stage, the / , petitioner/ defendant filed the aforesaid applications oniy to drag on the matter and to harass the respondent/ plaintiff, who is a senior citizen, aged about 72 years and, therefore, the aforesaid applications are not at all maintainable. The trial Court, on a consideration of the rival submissions and the entire material available on record, dismissed the aforesaid two applications. Challenging the same, the petitioner/ defendant filed these two Civil Revision Petitions.
Heard both sides Learned Counsel for the petitioner/ defendant would submit that as per the orders of the trial Court, dated 05. 11. 2019, in i. A. No. 889 of 2079 filed by the respondent/plaintiff, EX. A1 document was sent to District Regish'ar, Khammerm, to irnpour-rcl the document and accordingly, the District Registrar impounded the said document by collecting deficit stamp duty and penalty and returned the same to the trial Court without giving any detaiis as to whether he treated the said document as 'Bond' or not and as such, it is just and necessary to reopen the suit and to issue summons to the Dishict Registrar to give evidence to elicit the fact of examining and treating the document as 'Bond' as defined under clause (b) of Section 2 (5) of the Stamp Act.
I Learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff, while supporting the order of the trial Court, contends that evidence on both sides was closed in the suit and it is coming up for arguments and at this stage, the petitioner/ defendant filed the present applications only to drag on the proceedings and to harass the respondent/ plaintiff . As seen from the record, it is evident that as Per the orders of the trial Court, dated 05. 11". 2019, in I. A. No. B89 of 2019 filed by the respondent/ plaintiff, EX. A1 document was sent to the Disfiict Registrar, Khammam, to impound the document and accordingly, the District Registrar, 'Khammam, impounded the document by collecting cleficit stamp drty and penalty from the respondent/ piaintiff and the same was endorsed on the back side page of Ex. A. 1, and returned the same to the trial Court. Aggrieved by the order passed in I. A. No. BB9 of 201. 9, the respondent/ defendant filed C. R. P. No.
2933 of 2019 before this Court and the same is pending. Therefore, it cannot be elicited from the District Registrar, Khammam, whether he treated the said document as a bond or Security bond. Further, the hial Court by its reasoned order has considered the contentions of the petitioner/ defendant and has rightly rejected the applications, which were filed when the suit was posted for arguments. \ Therefore, I am of the view that the hial Court has not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disrnissed There shall be no order as to costs, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand closed. Sd/. K,AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// 'iL SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional District Judge at Khammam. 2. One CC to SRI KARUNAKAR REDDy Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to SRt. PULLA RAO YELLANK| Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies TL !
J, l HIGH COURT GSD,J DATED:1811212020 1 r-lE siA 16 o z (r (. ) 19 JAll 2021 a \ \,. I . * * D ! sa. a. 1slr COMMON ORDER CRP. No. 609 AND 614 o12020 DISMISSING C. R. Ps . Rv \\\ 2*',
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.