Telangana High Court
Gaddam Achutham Reddy vs Gaddam Chandan Reddy Died And 4 Others on 7 September, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1970 of 2022
AND 1971 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioner / plaintiff has filed these two Civil Revision Petitions assailing the common order dated 01.09.2022 passed in I.A.Nos.14 of 2022 and 15 of 2022 in O.S.No.39 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mancherial wherein and where under the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVI, Rule 14 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') with a prayer to re- open the case to summon the custodian of records of Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad (for short 'NIMS') as a Court witness and to produce the original case sheet and provide evidence regarding the admission record of Mr.G.Narasimha Reddy-father of the plaintiff during his stay at NIMS Hospital.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.
AVR,J CRP_1970_1971_2022 : 2:
3. The trial Court has dismissed the said interlocutory applications with an observation that as on the date of filing of the suit and at the time of adducing evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and even at the time of cross-examination of defendant the plaintiff is well aware that the said document is available and that he has not taken any steps to secure the document dated 01.01.2011 though the suit was filed in the year 2016 and that during this interregnum period also the petitioner has not taken any steps for summoning the document. Accordingly, as the applications were filed at the belated stage, after closure of evidence on both sides and when the matter is adjourned for arguments, both the applications were dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to submit that Order XVI, Rule 14 of CPC contemplates that after closure of evidence on both sides only a Court witness can be examined either by the Court on its own or at the instance of any of the parties and that earlier application filed with the photostat copies of the said records of NIMS along with stamp of concerned authorities affixed on it was not considered by the trial Court, thereby the petitioner has filed the said applications AVR,J CRP_1970_1971_2022 : 3: after closure of evidence on both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the principles laid in Bishwanath Rai Vs. Sachhidanand Singh1.
5. Be that as it may since the original suit relates to the year 2016 and the evidence on behalf of both sides is completed and it is only for better appreciation of the facts, the plaintiff has prayed to examine the custodian of the said records from NIMS with a direction to bring the relevant records. As such without looking into the merits or otherwise of the matter considering the fact that the petitioner has already filed photocopy of such record with seal of NIMS, which the trial Court refused to receive and the original is with the custodian of the said document of NIMS, Hyderabad. I find justification in the request of the petitioner and accordingly, it is felt essential to dispose of both the Civil Revision Petitions at the admission stage itself before issuing notice to the respondents, to avoid further delay, directing the trial Court to consider the said application and to issue summons to the witness concerned as prayed for and to dispose of the original suit within a timeframe fixed as under. 1 (1972) 4 Supreme Court Cases 707 AVR,J CRP_1970_1971_2022 : 4:
6. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions i.e. CRP Nos.1970 of 2022 and 1971 of 2022 are allowed setting aside the impugned common order dated 01.09.2022 passed in I.A.Nos.15 of 2022 and 14 of 2022 in O.S.No.39 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mancherial and consequently both the interlocutory applications i.e. I.A.Nos.15 of 2022 and 14 of 2022 stands allowed and the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2016 is reopened for limited purpose and the custodian of the records of NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad be summoned as a Court witness with a direction to produce the original case sheet of Mr.G.Narasimha Reddy-father of the plaintiff with IP No.1028972 with date of admission 13.12.2010 and date of discharge 01.01.2011 to give evidence subject to payment of required TA and DA befitting to his cadre. The trial Court shall not to grant unnecessary adjournments for examination of this witness. On appearance of said witness, let the entire examination i.e. chief-examination and cross- examination be completed on the same day and shall make every endeavour to complete the arguments and dispose of the original suit within three months from the date of receipt of copy AVR,J CRP_1970_1971_2022 : 5: of this order. Both the parties to the original suit shall co- operate for expeditious disposal as directed. This disposes both the Civil Revision Petitions. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________ A.VENKATESWHARA REDDY, J 07-09-2022 Abb