THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1794 of 2014 Date: 04-07-2014 Between :-
Jasthi Ramakrishna.
… Petitioner.
And Adimulam Srinivasulu … Respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri I.Venkata Prasad Counsel for respondent : --
This Court made the following :-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1794 of 2014 ORDER:
This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.22-06- 2012 in I.A.No.565 of 2013 in O.S.No.91 of 2011 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri.
2. The petitioner herein is defendant in the suit. The suit was filed for recovery of money against him by respondent/plaintiff. Written statement was filed by petitioner, issues were framed, evidence of plaintiff was completed and petitioner/defendant filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination in November, 2012. He had to appear for cross-examination and for that purpose, it was posted to 22-11-2012, 29-11-2012, 19-12-2012, 03-01-2013, 31-01-
2013, 14-02-2013 and 25-02-2013. In spite of being given 7 opportunities over a period of 4½ months to appear and submit himself for cross-examination, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court. Vexed with this attitude of the petitioner, the trial Court eschewed his evidence by order dt.25-02-2013. The matter was then posted for arguments.
3. On 03-03-2013, the petitioner filed I.A.No.565 of 2013 to set aside the order dt.25-02-2013 eschewing his chief-examination contending that he was taking treatment for his health at Anantapur since 15-02-2013 and he had not informed the same to his counsel.
4. By order dt.22-06-2013, the trial Court rejected the said application. It held that there was no evidence about the petitioner taking treatment for any disease in any hospital because he did not file the prescriptions or the doctor’s report, that ample opportunity had been given to him and because of his non-cooperation, his evidence was eschewed.
5. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner states that on account of ill-health of petitioner, he did not appear before the Court and although no evidence of ill-health was filed before the trial Court, an opportunity may be given to file the same before this Court and that the order of the trial Court therefore be set aside.
8. From the facts narrated supra, it is clear that 7 opportunities over a period of 4½ months had been granted to petitioner to submit himself for cross- examination after filing his affidavit in lieu of chief- examination, but he has not availed of the same. The alleged illness of the petitioner is only from 15-02-2013. Prior to this date, the matter had been posted on 6 different dates, but no explanation is forthcoming from petitioner why he did not attend the Court on these 6 dates of hearing. If the petitioner was really unwell and undergoing treatment, he should have filed medical records or examined the doctor who treated him in support of the said plea in the trial Court. This has not been done. The petitioner has exhibited a very callous and negligent attitude in defending the suit. The sole intention of the petitioner appears to be to drag on the proceedings in the suit as long as possible.
9. In this view of the matter, I find no error in the order passed by the trial Court dismissing I.A.No.565 of 2013. Therefore, the Revision is dismissed. In the circumstances without costs.
10. Miscellaneous applications pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 04-07-2014 vsv