Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) While the suit is posted for arguments, the petitioner filed an application before the Court below under Section 151 of CPC stating that the suit schedule property originally belongs to her husband who acquired the same from his father and that the same was gifted to her by way of a gift deed (Ex.A1); that as her husband was affected with paralysis subsequent to filing of the suit, she could not examine him at the relevant point of time. The VS,J petitioner further stated that after medication, petitioner's husband is now in good health and is able to give evidence. As such, the petitioner requested the Court below to permit her to reopen her evidence to examine her husband as P.W.4.
(c) The Court below, having observed that the petitioner failed to file any documentary evidence to prove that her husband suffered from paralysis and that the case of the petitioner cannot be proved by examining a third party to the suit, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 02.05.2024. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has putforth suitable reasons for reopening the petitioner's side evidence, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition is filed.
3. Heard Mr. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yathindra Dev, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was able to put-forth sufficient cause for not examining her husband at an earlier stage as he suffered from paralysis, the Court below, without considering the said fact, has dismissed the application filed for reopening the evidence. While relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead) and another Vs. P. VS,J Rajkumar, 1 , learned counsel contended that the procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice and that if the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. Hence, requested to allow the civil revision petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Court below.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and strenuously contended that the petitioner failed to produce any medical document proving that her husband suffered from paralysis. In the absence of any such proof, the petitioner's evidence cannot be reopened. Further, relying upon a judgment of the erstwhile High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Smt. Gollu Satyavathi and ors., Vs. Kilaparthi Apparao and ors., 2 learned counsel for the respondent requested this Court to dismiss the civil revision petition.