CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Dantham Chinna Chengachari vs Dantham Pedda Chengachari and Another

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 10 September 1999 · Citation: (1999) 5 ALT 384

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 26 Rule 1
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Petition No. 2535 of 1999
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 339 words

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.—The petitioner herein was the plaintiff, who had instituted O.S. No. 63 of 1995 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur for partition of the suit schedule properties. The evidence on the side of the plaintiff was over. Then the first defendant examined himself. He wanted to examine a witness named Sri K. Nagalingappa on his side to prove that there was already a partition in the year 1961 between the parties to the suit. But the said witness could not attend the Court because of his illness. Therefore, the first defendant filed LA. No. 719/99 in this suit for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to record his statement on oath but the plaintiff-petitioner herein opposed the said petition. The learned Judge appeared to have allowed the said application filed by the first defendant. Against the said order, the plaintiff-petitioner herein filed the present revision.

2.

Heard both the Counsels.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this attempt is made by the first defendant to protract the proceedings. Moreover, the first defendant-1st respondent herein did not file any medical certificate to prove the averment that his witness Sri K. Nagalingappa is bedridden and not able to move and therefore it was submitted that the order of the learned Judge is erroneous.

4.

On hearing both sides, this Court directs that if the first defendant is able to produce the medical certificate to the effect that the said witness is totally bedridden and not able to attend the Court (In that event) only the learned Judge should appoint the Advocate-Commissioner to record his statement. The order impugned is hereby set aside. The 1st respondent herein is given one more opportunity to produce the medical certificate into Court within the span of eight (8) days from the date of receipt of the order. If no such medical certificate is produced, then LA. No. 719/99 is deemed to have been dismissed.

5.

With these directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.