TELANAKULA KASI VISWANADHAM Vs. POKURI MARUTHI PRASAD
LAWS(APH)-2019-4-18
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 25,2019

Telanakula Kasi Viswanadham Appellant
VERSUS
Pokuri Maruthi Prasad Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BHARAT SINGH VS. BHAGIRATHI [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH PRASAD VS. DWARKA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

NARAGANI SIVA SURAMANYAM VS. KOTA SRINIVASA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2021-11-52] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M Seetharama Murti, J. - (1.)The unsuccessful respondent in GWOP.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the learned X Additional District judge, Gurazala, filed this Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved of the intermediary order, dated 24.07.2018, passed by the said learned Judge in the afore-stated GWOP.
(2.)I have heard the submissions of Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel, appearing for the Revision Petitioner/respondent, (hereinafter, 'respondent'), and of Ms. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner, (hereinafter, 'petitioner'). I have perused the material record.
(3.)The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner filed the afore stated GWOP for appointing him as natural guardian of a minor girl, Pokuri Neeraja, and for granting the custody of the said girl to him, he being the father of the said girl. The respondent, who is the maternal grandfather of the said girl, is resisting the said OP. During the course of trial, when the; petitioner was being examined as PW1, the learned counsel for the respondent confronted his previous deposition (PWl's previous deposition) in MC.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, and requested the trial Court to mark a portion of the said deposition viz., examination in chief, inter alia, contending that a party like the respondent is entitled to cross examine the petitioner like PW1 with respect to his previous statements made on oath before a competent Court and that such witness can be contradicted by drawing his attention to the contents of his earlier deposition and that the earlier deposition can be used for the purpose of contradiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed for such marking of a portion of the deposition. The trial Court by the impugned order refused to grant permission to mark the portion of his (PW1's) earlier deposition viz., chief examination in MC.No.25 of 201 wherein he was examined as RW1. The trial Court in the concluding portion of the order, which is impugned, held perbatim as follows:-

'The proper course would be to cross examine PW1 on the basis of his previous statement given in a judicial proceeding and to cite him attention to relevant portion of his evidence and then mark the entire document as exhibit but not only a portion of earlier statement which is not contradicted nor admitted since PWl did not give a perfectly satisfactorily explanation, in such event portion in the previous statement which would otherwise be contradictory would no longer to go to contradict or challenge the testimony of witness...."

Aggrieved of die orders of the learned trial judge, the respondent filed this revision before this Court.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.