Civil Revision Petition Nos. 295 and 218 of 2017. Case: Hussain Fallah Vs Anjuman-E-Ittehade Iraniane Deccan. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)

Case NumberCivil Revision Petition Nos. 295 and 218 of 2017
JudgesT. Sunil Chowdary, J.
IssueAndhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 26; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XVIII Rules 17, 151; Constitution of India - Article 227
Judgement DateFebruary 17, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)


T. Sunil Chowdary, J.

  1. Civil Revision Petition No. 295 of 2017, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2016 passed in I.A. No. 526 of 2016 in O.S. No. 2251 of 2013 on the file of the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking to reopen the matter.

  2. The facts leading to filing of the present petition are, briefly, as follows:

  3. The respondent filed O.S. No. 2251 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner for recovery of suit schedule property and also for mesne profits. The petitioner filed written statement taking a specific plea that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The trial Court returned the plaint to present the same before the proper Court basing on the oral testimony of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.16. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2015 passed in O.S. No. 2251 of 2013, the respondent preferred A.S. No. 63 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellate Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal with the following observation:

    "In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, remitting back the suit for rehearing and to decide on all issues by giving opportunity to both sides for adducing evidence and hearing........".

  4. After remanding of the matter, the respondent herein filed a memo on 15.11.2016 reporting no further evidence on its behalf. While the things stood thus, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 526 of 2016 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC to reopen the matter for further cross examination of P.W.1. The respondent filed counter opposing the same. The trial Court by order dated 09.12.2016 dismissed the said petition. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition.

  5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that 1) the trial Court failed to appreciate that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent even if the petition is allowed, 2) the trial Court without considering the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC dismissed the petition on erroneous grounds, 3) the trial court failed to consider that the respondent introduced a new version in the appeal and hence it is just and necessary to reopen the suit for further cross examination of P.W.1; and 4) the order passed by the Court below is not sustainable either on facts...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT