Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33115 (AP)

SYED UMMER v. KAREEM SYED BAJI

CRP/2476/2023 · 2025-07-02

T C D Sekhar

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010492952023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2476 OF 2023 Between: 1. SYED UMMER, S/o.Late Syed Mahaboob, Muslim, aged about 40 years, D.No.18-42,kondapalli post, Ibrahim PatnamMandalam,Krishna District, ...Petitioner AND 1. KAREEM SYED BAJI, s/o Late syed Abdul Kareem. Muslim, aged about 47 years, Residing at D.No.28-26-16,Kurmaiah street, ArundalPet,Vijayawada ...Respondent Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to Set aside the Orders, dated 28.07.2023 in I.ANo.522/2023 in O.S.No.74/2017 on the file of the Honourable XII Addl. District Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further 2 proceedings of suit in OS.NO. 74 OF 2017 on the file of The Court of XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above CRP, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to extend the interim order dt. 27-09-2023 in I.A.No 1 of 2023 in C.R.P.No. 2476 of 2023 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SATYANARAYANA DHARA Counsel for the Respondent: T V P SAI VIHARI The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2476 OF 2023 ORDER:- The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 28.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.522 of 2023 in O.S.No.74 of 2017 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The petitioner/defendant filed the suit for specific performance based on agreement of sale dated 12.01.2015. When the suit is posted for arguments, the petitioner/defendant filed the present application seeking to appoint Advocate Commissioner to record his evidence/chief affidavit/cross examination. To the said application, the respondent/ plaintiff filed counter affidavit. After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the present application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was suffering with viral fever for the last 40 days and he could not attend the Court for cross examination by the plaintiff. In view of the same, the trial Court was pleased to close the evidence of the defendant and posted the 4 matter for arguments. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of multiple ailments and due to sickness, he is unable to move from the bed and therefore, he could not attend the Court for cross examination, and therefore, the present application is filed to appoint Advocate Commissioner to record the cross examination. 4. On the other hand, the respondent filed counter affidavit stating that in support of the contention of the petitioner he neither filed any documentary evidence nor specifically mentioned about the alleged ailments of the petitioner. He would further submit that, despite imposing costs on two occasions, the petitioner did not turn up for cross examination. 5. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is clear that the petitioner failed to file any supportive evidence to substantiate his contention. In the absence of any record, the contention of the petitioner cannot be believed. The trial Court having considered the case on hand rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. 5 6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.03.07.2025 sj 6 41 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR C.R.P.No.2476 of 2023 Date: 03.07.2025 sj