K.Lakshmi Narasamma vs S.Farvez Saheb - Order(1) - Unknown Date

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

SL.<br>NO.	DATE	ORDER
01.	27.06.2023	RNT,<br>J
		This<br>civil<br>revision<br>petition<br>under
		Article 227 of the Constitution of India<br>has
		been<br>filed<br>challenging<br>the<br>Order<br>dated
		26.04.2023, passed in I.A.No.211 of 2023<br>in
		pending O.S.No.106<br>of 2016, on the file of
		Additional Junior civil Judge at Puttur.
		2.<br>The plaintiff petitioner filed the I.A.
		with a prayer to reopen the case for purpose
		of cross-examine<br>of D.W.1 and D.W.2.
		3.<br>Learned<br>counsel<br>for<br>the<br>petitioner
		submits<br>that<br>the<br>examination<br>of<br>the
		witnesses is being conducted by issuing the
		Advocate Commissioner.<br>He submits that
		02.04.2023 was the date fixed for recording
		of the evidence. The evidence of P.W.2 was
		recorded<br>and<br>the<br>evidence<br>of<br>D.W.1
		commenced,<br>during which<br>plaintiff's counsel
		objected to marking of certain documents<br>of
		D.W.1,<br>requesting<br>the<br>Advocate
		Commissioner to record the objections.<br>At
		that stage, the defendants 1 and 2 and their
		counsel<br>extended<br>threat<br>with<br>dire
		consequences and the said attitude was not
		changed,<br>in<br>spite<br>of<br>the<br>advise<br>of<br>the

SL.	ORDER	OFFICE
NO.		NOTE
	Advocate Commissioner.<br>It became very
	difficult to<br>record the examination before the
	Advocate<br>Commissioner.<br>The<br>petitioner
	submitted<br>a<br>memo<br>to<br>the<br>Advocate
	Commissioner, a copy of which<br>is<br>annexed at
	page 42 of the petition,<br>requesting to return
	the warrant<br>to the Court<br>and to<br>permit the
	petitioner to cross examine<br>D.Ws.1 and 2<br>in
	the public court.<br>The Commissioner also
	submitted<br>its<br>report<br>(at<br>page-44<br>of<br>the
	petition)<br>to the Court,<br>referring to the memo
	filed by the petitioner,<br>and<br>also<br>returning the
	commission warrant,<br>with the enclosures,
	that<br>the<br>commission<br>warrant<br>was<br>partly
	executed.
	3.<br>Thereafter,<br>the<br>petitioner<br>filed
	I.A.No.211 of 2023<br>in Court,<br>which has been
	rejected<br>by observing<br>as under:
	"on perusing<br>the rival contentions of
	both<br>parties,<br>this<br>Court<br>gave<br>several
	opportunities to the petitioner/plaintiff to
	cross-examine<br>D.Ws.1<br>and<br>2,<br>the
	petitioner<br>could<br>not<br>cross-examine
	D.Ws.1 and 2<br>for the reasons best known
	to the petitioner/plaintiff, in view of the
	facts and circumstances of the case, this
	Court<br>is<br>not<br>inclined<br>to<br>allow<br>the
	petition."
	4.<br>Prima facie, in view of the submissions
	advanced,<br>the<br>report<br>of<br>the<br>Advocate

SL.	ORDER	OFFICE
NO.	Commissioner,<br>and the memo filed by the	NOTE

	petitioner, the matter requires consideration
	at<br>depth,<br>with<br>opportunity<br>to<br>the
	respondents, to ensure fair and transparent
	trial.
	5.<br>Issue notice to the respondents.
	6.<br>In addition to the normal mode of
	service, the petitioner is permitted to take
	out<br>personal<br>notice<br>for<br>service<br>through
	registered post with acknowledgment due
	and file proof of service<br>before the next date.
	7.<br>Post<br>on 28.07.2023.
	8.<br>Learned<br>counsel<br>for<br>the<br>petitioner
	submits<br>that<br>the<br>suit<br>was<br>fixed<br>on
	26.06.2023 and now it is posted in the next
	week.
	9.<br>Till the next date of listing, further
	proceedings in O.S.No.106 of 2016, on the
	file of Additional Junior Civil Judge at Puttur
	shall remain stayed.

	10.<br>The order of the trial Court pursuant
	to which the evidence is being recorded on
	commission, shall also be produced before
	this Court.

	________<br>RNT,J
	Gk