Kondapalli Satyavathi vs. Kondapalli Appala Swamy S/O. Late Veerraju
AI Summary
In a significant procedural victory for property partition litigants, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside an order that had prevented cross-examination of a defendant's witness due to counsel unavailability. The court recognized the substantial property rights at stake and granted the plaintiffs a second opportunity to cross-examine the witness, emphasizing that evidence must not go untested in matters involving immoveable property disputes.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession of immoveable property against the respondents in the district court. After the written statement was filed and issues were settled, the trial commenced with evidence being recorded from both sides. During the trial, when the defendant's first witness (D.W.1) was being examined, the plaintiffs' counsel was absent because the first plaintiff was unwell and could not contact the counsel. As a result, the cross-examination of D.W.1 was treated as 'nil' and the witness's evidence was closed on 29.08.2011. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to reopen the evidence to cross-examine D.W.1. The trial court rejected this application by order dated 14.03.2012. The plaintiffs then filed a civil revision petition in the High Court challenging this rejection.
Timeline of Events
Original suit (O.S.No.55 of 2008) for partition and separate possession filed in the Additional District Judge's court, Rajahmundry
Written statement filed by respondents/defendants contesting the suit; issues settled; trial commenced; evidence recorded from both sides
Defendant's first witness (D.W.1) was examined; plaintiffs' counsel was absent due to first plaintiff being unwell; cross-examination was treated as 'nil' and witness evidence was closed
Trial court rejected the plaintiffs' application (I.A.No.728 of 2012) filed under Section 151 CPC seeking to reopen evidence for cross-examination
Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.No.3472 of 2012) filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the trial court's order
Revision petition registered in the High Court
High Court heard the petition and delivered the order allowing the revision petition and granting the petitioners an opportunity to cross-examine D.W.1
Key Factual Findings
The suit involves substantial rights of the parties in immoveable properties
Source: Current Court Finding
The testimony of D.W.1 had gone untested due to the absence of cross-examination
Source: Current Court Finding
The first plaintiff was unwell on 29.08.2011 and could not contact the counsel
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
The counsel was not present when the matter was called on 29.08.2011
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
The trial court would benefit from having complete evidence, including cross-examination of D.W.1, to arrive at a just decision
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioners argued that: (1) On 29.08.2011, the first plaintiff was unwell and could not contact the counsel; (2) The counsel was not present when the matter was called; (3) As a result, cross-examination of D.W.1 was treated as 'nil' without any opportunity being given to the plaintiffs; (4) This was procedurally unfair and deprived them of their right to test the defendant's evidence; (5) The suit involves substantial rights in immoveable properties; (6) Under Section 151 CPC, the court has inherent powers to grant relief to ensure substantive justice; (7) The plaintiffs should be given another opportunity to cross-examine D.W.1 to ensure the trial court has the complete picture of evidence before deciding the case.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondents did not appear before the High Court. No arguments were presented on their behalf. The respondents had presumably opposed the application in the trial court, but their specific arguments are not detailed in this order.
Court's Reasoning
The High Court's reasoning proceeded as follows: (1) The court acknowledged that the suit involves substantial rights of the parties in immoveable properties, which is a significant consideration; (2) The court recognized that the testimony of D.W.1 had gone untested due to the absence of cross-examination; (3) The court noted that the trial court would benefit from having the complete evidence, including the cross-examination of D.W.1, to arrive at a just decision; (4) The court considered that procedural lapses, particularly when counsel is absent due to genuine reasons (plaintiff's illness), should not result in deprivation of substantive rights; (5) The court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the impugned order; (6) The court granted the petitioners an opportunity to cross-examine D.W.1, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500 to the other side as a measure of fairness; (7) The court made it clear that if the petitioners fail to avail this opportunity, the trial court shall proceed further in accordance with law.
- Emphasis on Substantive Justice - The court prioritized ensuring a fair trial and complete evidence over strict procedural compliance
- Consideration of Practical Hardship - The court recognized the genuine hardship caused by the plaintiff's illness and counsel's unavailability
- Protection of Property Rights - The court emphasized the importance of protecting substantial rights in immoveable property disputes
- Fairness in Trial Process - The court ensured that evidence is not left untested, which is fundamental to a fair trial
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Petitioners/Plaintiffs are permitted to cross-examine D.W.1 (Defendant's Witness 1) on a date fixed by the trial court
- 2.Payment of costs of Rs. 500 to the other side is mandatory
- 3.In the event of failure to avail the opportunity to cross-examine, the trial court shall proceed further with the matter in accordance with law
- 4.The impugned order dated 14.03.2012 in I.A.No.728 of 2012 is set aside
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other High Court)
This is a single judge order from the Andhra Pradesh High Court dealing with a procedural matter under Article 227 of the Constitution. While it is not binding on other High Courts, it provides persuasive authority on the exercise of revisional jurisdiction to ensure substantive justice in property disputes. The order is particularly relevant for practitioners in Andhra Pradesh and may be cited as persuasive authority in other High Courts dealing with similar procedural issues.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
1 Aug 2012
Order Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWELEVE
PRESENT::
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3472 OF 2012
Between:-
Kondapalli Satyavathi @ Satya Devi and two others …Petitioners
A n d
Kondapalli appala Swamy and 9 others
…Respondents
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3472 OF 2012
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.03.2012 in I.A.No.728 of 2012 in O.S.No.55 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, the plaintiffs, under Section 151 CPC for reopening the evidence of the defendants to cross-examine D.W.1, was dismissed.
-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record.
-
The petitioners filed the suit for partition and separate possession. Respondents/defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. After settlement of issues, the trial of the suit is commenced and evidence on both sides was recorded. As the plaintiffs were not ready to cross-examine D.W.1, cross-examination was treated as 'nil' and D.W.1's evidence was closed on 29.08.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on that date, the 1 <sup>s</sup> <sup>t</sup> plaintiff who was looking after the matter was unwell and could not contact the counsel and the counsel was also not present when the matter was called and cross-examination of D.W.1 was treated as 'nil'.
-
Having regard to the fact that the suit involves substantial rights of the parties in the immoveable properties, it is considered that an opportunity be given to the plaintiffs to cross-examine D.W.1 so that the testimony of D.W.1 does not go untested and the trial Court will have the opportunity to appreciate the entire evidence which would help in arriving at a just decision in the matter. In that view of the matter, the petitioners/plaintiffs are permitted to cross-examine D.W.1 on a date fixed by the trial Court subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to other side and in the event of their failure to avail the said opportunity, the trial Court shall proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. The impugned order is
accordingly set aside.
- In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
____________________
01 st August, 2012 Lrkm
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order