HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THIS THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2172 of 2014 Between:
Pasupuleti Venkata Satyanarayana . PETITIONER And Bandaru Kasi Viswanatham and 8 others . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2172 of 2014
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.04.2014 passed in I.A.No.1258/2012 in O.S.No.52/2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of respondents despite service of notice.
The revision petitioner is the 7th defendant in the suit. The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition in respect of certain items of schedule property against the petitioner as well as other defendants. The suit was instituted in the year 2005. Issues were settled and the plaintiff was also cross examined by the learned counsel appearing for the 7th defendant before the trial Court. The petitioner/7th defendant filed additional written statement stating that the plaintiff has been suffering from mental disorder for the last 14 years and therefore, he was not in a fit mental condition to file suit against anybody and therefore, the suit filed by him is not maintainable. The plaintiff, however, did not file any rejoinder to the additional written statement filed by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner filed an application to summon Dr.Bhagyarao, Professor and Head of the Department of Psychiatry and the Superintendent of Andhra Medical College Hospital, Visakhapatnam as a witness to establish the fact that the petitioner was treated for 3 months as inpatient at relevant time.
The petition was opposed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff stating that the plaintiff was cross examined by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner at length, but no suggestion was put to him that he was insane or was not in a fit mental condition to file the suit. It is also contended that since no issue as to the mental condition of the plaintiff was framed, the revision petitioner is not entitled to adduce evidence on the said aspect and the petition was filed only to protract the proceedings.
The version of the revision petitioner before the learned trial Court was that the plaintiff sold Item-1 of the schedule mentioned properties to him under two sale deeds in the year 1993 and the defendants 1 to 4 instigated the plaintiff to file the suit on false grounds and the plaintiff was not in a fit state of mind to institute the suit.
The learned trial Court observed that no suggestion was given to the plaintiff in the course of cross examination about his mental condition and the mere fact that the plaintiff was under the treatment of Psychiatrist for some time during the relevant time does not mean that he was insane and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Holding so, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it is filed only to drag on the proceedings.
The learned trial Court recorded sufficient reasons to reject the petition and rightly pointed out that the plaintiff instituted the suit in the year 2005 and has been prosecuting the same even as on date, and even if he was under treatment of Psychiatrist, it cannot give rise to a presumption that he was not in fit state of mind to institute the suit in the year 2005. I absolutely see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 10.10.2014 Dsr