No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1461, 1462, 1463,
1512 and 1650 of 2023
% 21.09.2023
CRP No.1461 of 2023:
Between:
# K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, B usiness,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
$ M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M.
Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59
years, Business, H.No. 81-27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1462 of 2023:
Between:
# K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
$ M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M.
Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59
years, Business, H.No. 81-27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1463 of 2023:
2
Between:
# K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
$ M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M.
Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59
years, Business, H.No. 81-27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1512 of 2023:
Between:
# K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
$ M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M.
Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59
years, Business, H.No. 81-27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1650 of 2023:
Between:
# K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Re ddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
3
$ M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M.
Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59
years, Business, H.No. 81-27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Vivekananda
Virupaksha.
^ Counsel for the respondent : Ms. M. Siva Jyothi.
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1
2012(5)ALD 243
1
(2020)10 SCC 706
1
2022 (3) Civil C (S.C)
1
(1994) 4 SCC 659
1
2018 2 ALD 470
1
2013 LawSuit (SC) 171
1
2011 LawSuit (SC) 271
4
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1461, 1462, 1463,
1512 and 1650 of 2023
CRP No.1461 of 2023:
Between:
# K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
$ M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M.
Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 5 9
years, Business, H.No. 81-27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1462 of 2023:
Between:
# K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road ,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
$ M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M.
Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59
years, Business, H.No. 81-27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1463 of 2023:
Between:
5
# K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
$ M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M.
Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59
years, Business, H.No. 81-27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1512 of 2023:
Between:
# K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
$ M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M.
Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59
years, Business, H.No. 81-27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1650 of 2023:
Between:
# K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
6
$ M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M .
Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59
years, Business, H.No. 81-27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 21.09.2023.
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
Copy of the Order? Yes/No
_______________________________
JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE 21
ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER , TWO
THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1461, 1462, 1463, 1512
and 1650 of 2023
CRP No.1461 of 2023:
Between:
K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M. Ranga
Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59 years,
Business, H.No. 81 -27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1462 of 2023:
Between:
K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M. Ranga
Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59 years,
Business, H.No. 81 -27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
8
CRP No.1463 of 2023:
Between:
K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M. Ranga
Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59 years,
Business, H.No. 81 -27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1512 of 2023:
Between:
K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
And
M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M. Ranga
Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59 years,
Business, H.No. 81 -27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
CRP No.1650 of 2023:
Between:
K. J. Reddy (K. Janardhan Reddy), @
Konikanti Janardhan Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, Hindu, Business,
H.No. 46-1, Joharapuram Road,
Kurnool and another.
….Petitioners
9
And
M. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late M. Ranga
Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59 years,
Business, H.No. 81 -27-5-1, Ram
Rahim Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District.
….Respondent
COMMON ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. These revisions are filed against the common order
passed in I.A.No. 138 of 2020, I.A.No. 140 of 2022 and
I.A.No. 143 of 2022 and docket orders in I.A Nos. 137 of 2022
and I.A.No. 141 of 2022 in O.S.No. 56 of 2017 on the file of VI
Additional District Judge, Kurnool dated 14.03.2023 in
rejecting to receive the documents mentioned in I.A.No. 138
of 2022 and recall PW1 for marking of those documents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are the petitioners in the above said I.As and
plaintiffs in the suit. The respondent is the respondent in the
I.As and the defendant in the suit. The suit is filed in O.S.No.
56 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool
by the petitioners against the respondent as defendant in the
said suit seeking declaration of title and grant of permanent
10
injunction with respect to the suit schedule property to an
extent of Ac. 3.95 cents in Sy.Nos. 414/3, 414/1A and
414/1B. In the plaint of the suit, it is stated that one Mr.
Chennaiah and E.C. Manohar also filed O.S.No. 19 of 2003
seeking injunction against the government when it tried to
interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property therein and obtained interim injunction
during the pendency of the suit. Subsequently, the said suit
was decreed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
against the said suit the first appeal is pending before the
Hon’ble High Court. Now that the present suit is at the stage
of defendants’ evidence. The documents filed along with the
plaint were already marked as exhibits during the course of
plaintiffs’ evidence. However, the documents relating to
O.S.No. 19 of 2003 decreed by the Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Kurnool are not marked in the present suit which
may cause prejudice to the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs
in establishing their title for the said property. Hence the
petitioners filed the above said I.As before the trial court after
obtaining those documents as mentioned in the above said
11
I.A with leave application to recall PW1 for marking of those
documents. The trial court after considering those I.As on
merits rejected the same on the ground that the documents
which are sought to be filed by the petitioner are the certified
copies of the documents in O.S.No. 19 of 2003 which was
diposed off by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in
the month of November, 2006 itself. Therefore, it is very clear
that there was every possibility of getting certified copies of
documents in O.S.No. 19 of 2003 from the said court for
filing the same along with the plaint in the present suit but
no explanation was given by the petitioners/plaintiffs as to
why they could not be filed along with the plaint or atleast by
producing the same during the course of evidence of PW1.
Unless valid reasons are furnished for non filing of the
documents along with the plaint, the court canno t grant
leave in a routine manner to file the documents at a later
stage. The trial court further observed that the proposed
documents do not in any way help the petitioners in proving
their title over the suit schedule property. Moreover, there is
a direction from the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to
dispose of the suit within a reasonable time.
12
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in
the above said I.As, the petitioners submitted the reasons for
non production of those documents either at the stage of
filing of the suit or during the course of plaintiffs evidence as
they are not available with them and it took some time for
them to obtain the certified copies of the same.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent submits that the trial court rightly dismissed
the above said I.As since those documents do not in any way
be helpful to establish the title of the plaintiffs with respect to
the suit schedule property, as there is an abnormal delay in
securing those documents that too when the earlier suit was
diposed of in the month of November, 2006 itself and there is
a pending first appeal before this Hon’ble High Court. The
petitioners could have filed those documents along with the
plaint itself in the present suit since the present suit was
instituted in the year 2017. When the parties are not diligent
for production of the relevant documents, the court cannot
show any indulgence enabling the parties to fill up their
lacunae in the suit proceedings. Hence, she further
13
supported the common order passed by the trial court as
reasoned one and no interference is warranted at this stage.
7. In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the following decisions:
i. In the matter of Mr. Anjaneyulu vs. R. Subramanyam
Achary
1in CRP. No. 5683 of 2011 dated 05.03.2012,
the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that
even though the reason put forth by the petitioner for
the delay in filing the proposed documents is vague,
one of those documents being a registered sale deed, it
may certainly have a bearing on his defence in the suit.
Moreover, those documents were sought to be produced
before the commencement of the cross-examination of
the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the respondent will
certainly have an opportunity of explaining the nature
of those documents if they are put to him in the cross-
examination. Having regard to these circumstances, the
lower court ought to have permitted the petitioner to
produce the two documents in question.
1
2012(5)ALD 243
14
ii. In the matter of Sugandhi (Dead) by L.Rs and Ors. Vs.
P. Rajkumar
2 in Civil Appeal No. 3427 of 2020 dated
13.10.2020, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the
procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and
technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the
way of the court while doing substantial justice. 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. We should not forget the fact
that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth
which is the foundation of justice and the court is
required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the
underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court
should take a lenient view when an application is made
for production of the documents under Sub -rule (3).
Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed
an application assigning cogent reasons for not
producing the documents along with the written
statement. They have stated that these documents were
2
(2020)10 SCC 706
15
missing and were only traced at a later stage. It cannot
be disputed that these documents are necessary for
arriving at a just decision in the suit. We are of the view
that the courts below ought to have granted leave to
produce these documents.
iii. In the matter of Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Ors.
Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and Ors.
3in
Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2022 dated 17.05.2022, the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the trial court as well
as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not
permitting the defendants to produce documents, the
relevance of which can be examined by the trial court
on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a
party to the suit not to file documents even if there is
some delay will lead to denial of justice. It is well settled
that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and
therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial court
should have imposed some costs rather than to decline
the production of the documents itself. Consequently,
the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the trial
3
2022 (3) Civil C (S.C)
16
court and the High Court are set aside. The appellants-
Defendants are permitted to file the documents and to
prove the same in accordance with law.
iv. In the matter of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Ors.
Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and Ors.
4in Civil Appeal No.
2254 of 1994 dated 28.01.1994, the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that it is clear from its bare reading that the
parties or their counsel shall be required to produce all
the documentary evidence in their possession of power
which they intend to rely on to establish their right
along with pleadings or before settlement of the issues.
The court is enjoined under Sub-rule (2) to receive such
documents provided they are accompanied by an
accurate list thereof prepared in the prescribed form. If
they are not in the party’s possession or custody, it
shall be filed by the party along with an application to
condone the delay in filing them. The explanation for
delay is not as rigorous as on e filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act. These documents were not in the
possession or custody of the appellant, but they have
4
(1994) 4 SCC 659
17
obtained certified from the revenue authorities and
sought to be produced. It is undoubted that there is a
delay in production of the said documents. But the trial
court had stated that the application was filed at the
stage of arguments, seeking to produce those
documents and sought to rely upon the documents. It
is settled law that, if the documents are found to be
relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy and
when the court felt that interest of justice requires that
the documents may be received, exercising the power
under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. the appellate court
would receive the documents and consider their effect
thereof. When such is the position, when the
documents are sought to be produced in the trial court,
before the arguments are completed, normally they may
be received; an opportunity given to prove them and
rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect may have,
be considered in deciding the issues arose in the
controversy. Under these circumstances, the trial court
was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and
to receive the documents. The High Court also
18
committed the same error in not considering the effect
in this behalf in the right perspective. The orders are
accordingly set aside and the delay in filing the
documents is condoned. The trial court is directed to
receive the documents, give an opportunity to the
parties to prove the documents and if necessary,
opportunity to the respondent to rebut the same and
then dispose of the references according to law. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent relied upon the following decisions:
i. In the matter of Uppu Hymavathi Mahila Sangam;
Gandhinagaram, Anakapally, Visakhapatnam
District and Others Vs. Vidyaniketan Public School
5,
in C.R.P.No. 7152 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017, the
learned Single Judge observed that the reasons given by
the petitioners as referred to above do not satisfy the
twin requirements discussed above. Though a vague
averment was made in the affidavit that some of the
documents remained with the past executive members,
5
2018 2 ALD 470
19
it is not specifically pleaded that the so called bylaws
and the certificate proposed to be filed also formed part
of the said documents. It is not in dispute that both the
documents were in existence much prior to the filing of
the suit. The fact that they were not filed along with the
plaint despite their existence shows that the petitioners
were not diligent in filing relevant documents. Moreover,
the petitioners failed to explain the relevancy of the
proposed documents in determining the real
controversy in the suit. Having allowed the evidence to
be closed, the petitioners cannot be permitted to
wakeup at their leisure and seek to re -open the
evidence purportedly on the basis of the advice given by
their counsel.
ii. In the matter of Bagai Construction and Ors Vs.
Gupta Building Ma terial Store
6reported in 2013
LawSuit (SC) 171 dated 27.02.2013 it was observed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court that the perusal of the materials
placed by the plaintiff which are intended to be marked
as bills have already been mentioned by the plaintiff in
6
2013 LawSuit (SC) 171
20
its statement of account but the original bills have not
been placed on record by the plaintiff in its statement of
account but the original bills have not been placed on
record by the plaintiff till the date of filing of such
application. It is further seen that during the entire
trail, those documents have remained in exclusive
possession of the plaintiff but for the reasons known to
it, still the plaintiff has not placed these bills on record.
In such circumstance, as rightly observed by the trial
court at this belated stage and that too after the
conclusion of the evidence and final arguments and
after reserving the matter for pronouncement of
judgment, we are of the view that the plaintiff cannot be
permitted to file such applications to fill the lacunae in
its pleadings and evidence led by him.
iii. In the matter of K. K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy
7dated 30.03.2011 reported in 2011 LawSuit (SC) 271,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that whether the
application is found to be bonafied and where the
additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the
7
2011 LawSuit (SC) 271
21
court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will
assist in rendering justice, and the court to clarify the
evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering
justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production
earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court
may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or
permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should
ensure that the process does not become a protracting
tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs
to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly
the court should take up and complete the case within
a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided.
Thirdly if the application is found to be mischievous, or
frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should
be rejected with heavy costs. If the application is
allowed and the evidence is permitted and ultimately
the court finds that evidence was not genuine or
relevant and did not warrant the reopening of the case
recalling the witnesses, it can be made a ground for
awarding exemplary costs apart from ordering
prosecution if it involves fabrication of evidence. If the
22
party had an opportunity to produce such evidence
earlier but did not do so or if the evidence already led is
clear and unambiguous, or if it comes to the conclusion
that the object of the application is merely to protract
the proceedings, the court should reject the application.
If the evidence sought to be produced is an electronic
record, the court may also listen to the recording before
granting or rejecting the application.
9. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners also
relied upon another decision of this Court in C.R.P. No. 7503
of 2018 dated 07.04.2022 in the matter of Korlepara Kasi
Viswanadham vs. Korlepara Ramachandra Rao , wherein it
was held that since the defendant sought to file documents
after obtaining their certified copies from the Rent Control
Court, where their originals are filed and a specific defence is
taken in this regard and their reference was also made in the
written statement, there is no illegality or irregularity
committed by the trial court in allowing the petition filed by
the defendant seeking leave to receive those documents. As
rightly observed by the trial court, it is open for the revision
petitioner/plaintiff to take appropriate objections when these
23
documents are tendered in evidence. As such, this court
finds that there is no merit in the revision petition.
10. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the
rival submissions made and upon consideration of the above
said decisions, it is to be seen that the documents sought to
be marked are with reference to the grant of injunction in
favour of the petitioners’ vendors with reference to the
subject property. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the
parties to the said suit in O.S.No. 19 of 2003 on the file of
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. Now that the 1
st
appeal is pending against the judgment and decree of the
said suit. The present suit is at the stage of examination of
defendants’ evidence. The plaint averments show about the
earlier proceedings instituted by the petitioners’ vendors in
the above said suit against the government. But it is true
that these documents were not filed along with the plaint
though there is an averment in the plaint. The plaintiff got
marked the documents which were shown in the list of
documents along with the plaint. Since, it is a declaration of
title for the plaint schedule property, the petitioner thought it
fit to produce these documents additionally in relation to the
24
subject property for which he filed the above said I.As and in
filing of the same, the delay was tried to be explained saying
that it took some time for securing those documents as
certified copies. No prejudice would cause, if these
documents are marked at this stage in the suit as the
adversary will have an opportunity to cross -examine the
same and rebut those documents. The judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above also show a lenient
view in the matter of marking of documents. As the suit on
hand is pending at the stage of adducing of evidence during
the course of trial, the trial court ought to have allowed
atleast I.A Nos. 138 of 2022 and 143 of 2022 only to receive
the certified copies of the documents in O.S.No. 19 of 2003
on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool and
recall PW1 for marking of those documents to meet the ends
of justice, if necessary by imposing necessary costs payable
to the other side. As the above said I.As are dismissed by the
trial court erroneously, the same are herewith set aside to
meet the ends of justice by directing the petitioners to pay
costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the other side before the trial court
within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of
25
this order. The trial court shall allow those documents of
certified copies as contended in I.A. No. 138 of 2022 and
recalling of PW1 to mark those documents and cross -
examination thereon. After such reopening, t he
respondent/defendant shall be given an opportunity to cross-
examine the PW1 and contradict those documents in
accordance with law. Accordingly, the trial shall be proceeded
with accordance with law. However, it is made clear that as
the suit is of the year 2017, the trial court is directed to
dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible on it’s own
merits as per law preferably within a period of six (6) months
from the date of receipt of this order for which both the
parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the suit.
11. Accordingly, the C.R.P. Nos. 1461, 1463 and 1650 of
2023 are disposed off and the C.R.P.Nos. 1512 and 1462 of
2023 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Interim order if any, deemed to have been vacated.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
21.09.2023
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
B/o: UPS
Legal Notes
Add a Note....