Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 256 (TS)

Gujjari Padma v. Cheguri Srinivas

2020-02-10

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.28.10.2019 in I.A.No.296 of 2019 in O.S.No.126 of 2015 on the file of the XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad refusing to reopen the suit for adducing evidence on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The matter had been posted for cross-examination of the petitioner/P.W.1 since 02.08.2016 and 13 adjournments took place. The petitioner did not appear before the Court and submit herself to cross-examination. Hence, the suit was posted for judgment to 23.07.2019 and thereafter got adjourned to 14.08.2019. 3. On that day, the petitioner filed I.A.No.296 of 2019 to reopen the suit and to permit her to adduce evidence taking a plea that both her legs got fractured and so she could not give instructions to the counsel. In support of the said plea, certain documents were filed by the petitioner. 4. Counter-Affidavit was filed by the respondent disputing the said contentions and stating that there is no evidence of any fracture of the legs of the petitioner. The respondent also contended that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the case and that was why she did not appear and submit to cross-examination and her evidence was eschewed and closed. 5. On 28.10.2019, the Court below dismissed the said Application. 6. It observed that the medical reports filed by the petitioner did not disclose any evidence of her fracture and disproved the plea of the petitioner that she suffered fractures. It also noted that 13 adjournments had been given over a period of one year to the petitioner to appear and submit to cross-examination. But since the petitioner did not do so, her evidence was eschewed. 7. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed. 8. Heard counsel for the petitioner who reiterated the contentions of the petitioner that she suffered fractures and therefore could not appear in the Court for over a period of one year for 13 adjournments mentioned in the order passed by the Court below. 9. The medical certificates produced in the Court below have not been filed in this Court. The trial Court had perused the said medical certificates and opined that they did not prove that the petitioner suffered any fractures. 10. 9. The medical certificates produced in the Court below have not been filed in this Court. The trial Court had perused the said medical certificates and opined that they did not prove that the petitioner suffered any fractures. 10. Having filed the suit, it is the duty of the petitioner to cooperate with the Court below for disposal of the suit. But in spite of being granted several adjournments to her to submit to cross-examination, the petitioner has not done so. 11. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. 12. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Revision shall also stand dismissed.