M/S. Sunkara Kotech v. M/S. Srilatha Raghuram Cotton Industries

f" r':.r- -9 ,)1::l i'

j, , ,{i..:

0,r .l i:: '

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

,L FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT 2017 on the file of the ll-Addl. District Judge at Warangal. M THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2790 and 2810 OF 2022 CRP.No.2790/2022 .t.

Petition under Atticle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, to aggrieved by the Order and Decree Dt.14.11.2022 passed in I A No.439 of 2022 in O S No 36 of Between:

M/s. Sunkara Kotech, Chlntha Nekkonda Village rep. by its Proprietol Qu{91a Madnavi, W/o. Ramakoteswar Rao, age 49 yeais, Occ Business, R/o H'No 20-5iZa, Contractors Colony, Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Kothgudem District' ...Revision Petitioners/Plaintiff.

AND ,$# + ,, ti, ir fl';

,+.

'1. M/s. Srilatha Raghuram Cotton lndustries' Chintha Nekkonda R-ep' by its Fr.tn"r" Vadlam"uri Rukmini, W/o. Krishna Rao, Age 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Warangal District.

2. M/s. Srilatha Raghuram Cotton lndustries, Chintha Nekkonrli Rep. by its Partners Vadlamiuri Krishna Rao, S/o. Shiva Ramaiah, Age 55 y0ears' Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Warangal District. Bffi

3. Vadlamuri Vr.laya Bhargav, S/o. Krishna Rao, Age 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H,No.t2184, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Warangal District.

4. Vadlamuri Pujitha, Wo. Rahul, Age 33 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. H. No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Warangal District.

...RESPONDENTS .t lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the llAddl. District Judge at Warangal, pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition.

-----7 -2- ,tiJ,l :

&,#* QRP.No.2810/2022 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, to aggrieved by the Order and Decree dt.14.1 1.2022 passed in 1.A.No.440 of 2022 in O.S.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the ll-Addl. District Judge at Warangal. Between:

M/s. Sunkara Kotech, Chintha Nekkonda Village rep. by its Proprietor Sunkara Madhavi, W/o. Ramakoteswar Rao, age 49 years, Occ Business, R/o. H No.20-5124, Contractors Colony, Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Kothgudem District f.

:_ {.

tr fi.^!:

... Revision Petitioners/Plaintiff AND f,,',1$H {r: 'Et:';

IE', .t

1. M/s. Srilatha Raghuram Cotton lndustries, Chintha Nekkonda Rep. by its Partners Vadlamuri Rukmini, W/o. Krishna Rao, Age 52 years, Occ: Business' R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, Palvoncha Village and ltrlandal, Warangal District,

2. M/s. Srilatha Raghuram Collon lndustries, Chintha Nekkonda Rep. by its Partners Vadlamuri Krishna Rao, S/o. Shiva Ramaiah, Age 55 y0ears, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, Palvoncha Village and Mandal, Warangal District.

3. Vadlamuri Vijaya Bhargav, S/o. Krishna Rao, Age 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, Palvoncha Village and lvlandal, Warangal District.

4. Vadlamuri Pujitha, W/o- Rahul, Age 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12-84, Saireddypalle Village, Chintha Nekkonda Village, Palvoncha Village and fv'landal, Warangal District.

i r :'l l .\ ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the ll-Addl. District Judge at Warangal, pending disposal of the main civil revision petition and.,., pass .-tr, l.,r i i i:r *'#i, i': ?

,. t Counsel for the Petitioner in both the Petititons :SRl. CHAVALI RAMANAND, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondents in both the Petititons : None Appeared.

ir, The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER '' ii *::

1";r!

41r 'f..

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA c L REVISION PETITION No.2790 AND 28lO OF 2022 COMMON ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition Nos. 279O and 2810 of 2022 are filed aggrieved by the orders, dated 14. 1l'2022 passed in I.A.Nos.439 and 44O of 2022 respectively in O S'No'36 of 2OL7 , on the Iile of the lI Additional District Judge at Warangal, whereby the Court below has dismissed both the said applications.

2.

The petitioner in both the IA's is the plaintiff in the said suits. He hled O.S. No. 36 of 2077 seeking specilic performance of contract. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner hled I.A. No. 439 of 2022 under order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking of documents and cross examination' The petitioner filed this petition stating that he came to know about the documents executed between Andhra Bank, Shambunipet Branch, Warangal and V. Krishna Rao & others recently and that the said documents are crucial for proper adjudication of the case. As such, prayed to receive the said documents and recall PW. 1 for marking the said documents'

SKS. J C R P Nos 2790 and 2A1O ol 2A22 3.

The petitioner also I'iled I.A. No. 44O of 2O22 uncler order VII R. 14(3) r/w Section 15 i of C.P.C. praying to receive the documents filed along with the petition 4.

The respondents filed counter stating that there is delay in fili{S the documents, which r,vas not explained and there are nd bonahdes in the petition. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

5.

Considering the contention of the petitioner and respondents, the trial Court dismissed both applications, stating that the documents are of the year 2017, whereas, the petitions are filed in the year 2022, witl:rout explaining proper reasons for the delay.

ggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, these Civil n Petitions are filed.

Revisi 7.

Heard Sri. C. Ramanand, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. 8.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the documents which were requested before the trial Court for the purpose of marking and cross examination are very crucial for

SKS, J C.R P.Nos.2790 and 2810 of 2422 J L the di posal of the suit and the petitioner recently came to S know about those documents.

9.

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that though there is delay in frling the documents, which are very crucial for the disposal of the suit, to meet the ends of justice, a fair chance can be given to the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision petitions are allowed settinf aside the orders dated 14.ll.2022 in I.A.Nos.439 and 440 0]f 2022 in o.S.No.36 0f 2017, on the frle of the II " Additional District Judge at Warangal. The trial Court is directed to consider the applications f,rled for recalling the petitioner and receiving the documents and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. However, both the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for early disposal of the suit. No order as to costs.

Pe miscellaneous applications, if any, in these nding revlslon petition, shall stand closed.

Sd/-Motrd. tsmait ASSISTANT REQISTRAR c'l)-- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Addl. District Judge at Warangal'

2. One CC to SRl. CHAVALI RAIVANAND, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD coPies cvk \,\- 1.i, Ji

;i ..1 HIGH COURT DATED:2911212023 .ii :^.

:,.'

J HE SI47 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.2790 & 2810 of 2022 oo 2 3 ilAB 2ll2l t -t sPn-lt-"'

Dc 4,.:, .:.tl Ij Both the CRPs are Allowed.

.

't i:..\ A";**", ffi, afka ) ,,\,.

. !.!

tr"