PRATAP REDDY Vs. VANDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 2-2-2009, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, insofar as it imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant while the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of suit property. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement. After framing of issues, the respondent-plaintiff adduced evidence and his evidence was closed. Thereafter, the suit was posted for the evidence of the petitioner-defendant. As the petitioner- defendant was not appearing continuously, and as there was no representation on his behalf and as he failed to take any steps to get the document impounded, the Court below, closed his evidence and posted the matter for arguments to 15-12-2008. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner- defendant filed two applications - the first application praying to re-open the suit for cross-examination of D.W.1, and the second application to recall D.W.1 for cross- examination, stating that he had filed a petition before the District Revenue Officer for impounding the document, and that the same having been sent to the Inspector of Stamps and Duty, for collecting the duty and penalty, is pending. That his absence is neither wilful nor wanton and therefore, it is just and necessary to re-open the suit and recall D.W.1 for cross-examination.

(3.) The respondent-plaintiff contested the applications filing counters inter alia stating that the petitioner-defendant filed affidavit in lieu of chief of his evidence, and at the time of marking the documents, the Court below by order dated 1-8-2008, refused to mark a document as the same required registration, Questioning the said order, the petitioner-defendant carried the matter in revision, but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the Court below granted about four months to the petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence, but he did not do so. Thereafter, the petitioner-filed transfer petition, but the same was also dismissed. The Court below after granting sufficient time, closed the evidence of the petitioner- defendant and posted the suit for arguments. At that point of time, the petitioner filed an application praying to send the document to the District Registrar for impounding and for collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The said application was allowed on 9-6-2008 with a direction to get the same impounded within a period of one month. Since the petitioner-defendant in spite of granting time, failed to proceed with the matter, by adducing evidence, he prayed that the applications be dismissed.