Shekar Suman 30 March 2020
G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.) 30 March 2020
Interested to know the remedy for issues like these from experts.
G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.) 30 March 2020
But never resort to any step in the case without instructions from your advocate as many may not like such independent actions of clients and difference of opinions may start instead of getting the issue solved.
P. Venu (Advocate) 30 March 2020
The facts posted are less than convincing. A revision petition is not trial. How come the issue of cross examination?
Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Telangana state Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 ) 30 March 2020
The panel, headed by the secretary (justice) in the law ministry, “unanimously accepted” that the law of three adjournments should be strictly followed at least for commercial disputes. Frequent adjournments are considered a major cause of rising pendency of cases.
TGK REDDI 30 March 2020
There're so many laws. But there's no rule of law.
Dharam karam ko kal jug mein koi nahin poochega?
To Prabhu bole:
Dharm bhi hoga karm bhi hoga parantu sharm nahi hogi
ANGATLO ANNEE UNNAAYI ALLUDI NOTLO SANI UNDI
Shekar Suman 30 March 2020
P. Venu (Advocate) 30 March 2020
My suggestion has been based on facts posted and the elements therefrom. There is no question of any examination of witnesses or cross examination therefrom in a revision petition, civil or criminal. It is for the queriest to address the misconception created by his own posting.
Shekar Suman 30 March 2020
P. Venu (Advocate) 30 March 2020
The facts posted are inadequate make out the type of case you have filed. Certainly, it cannot be a revision petition. Please simple facts bringing out the primary, but material and essential details
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 30 March 2020
The author may not be knowing the proper term.
It may be an appeal.
However in appeal also there is no necessity for chief and cross examination.
The author has clearly mentioned that the case has been decided and an eviction order has been passed by court but the court has not passed an order for recovery of arrears of rent.
It means the trial court has allowed the petition partly i.,e, the judgment in his favor was given in respect of eviction alone and may not be for other relief.
Therefore I find nothing wrong in expert learned advocate Mr. P. Venu's query.
The author seem to have roamed around the court for over six years as per his verdict, hence he should be knowing the difference between revision, appeal or whatever the current status of the pending case.
Moreover he has become prudent enough to handle the case as party in person, hence his insistence on respondent's cross examination not happening in the revision petition is raising doubts about the actual status of the case.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 30 March 2020
Presuming that the court is not taking any action against the respondent for her non appearance before court for cross examination, the petitioner has a right to file a petition to eschew the entire chief examination before the trial court for the reasons therein that despite respondent had reopened the case twice but never bothered to be present for cross examination hence he same may be closed by passing an order for eschewing the chief evidence.
Shekar Suman 30 March 2020
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 30 March 2020
The author's version is given below:
The matter is of rent and evacuation. Though the court gave order for eviction. The rent due from respondent was not ordered. So I've filed revision petition. Asking court to get me rent from respondent.
From this the following can be understood:
1. The original petition seeking several reliefs, was disposed by the trial court by partly allowing the petition granting the relief of eviction alone.
2. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the aggrieved judgment which did not allow the recovery of rent before the appellate court in the district level and it is not revision [petition pending before the appellate court because revision can be filed before high court only and also there is no question of filing a revision petition once the case has been disposed.
3. In the appeal there is no question of chief examination or cross examination, hence the statement made by the author in the form of query is certainly a misleading hence any opinion given to his vague query would be a misleading opinion.
4. Since there is no examination of witness in appeal, the next step after the respondent appears before court is enquiry, i.e., the court will post the matter for arguments by petitioner/appellant and respondent.
So it is better that the querist reverts with the actual details.
Moreover due to current pandemic crisis the courts are expected to reopen by the end of April only, hence he cannot do anything now about it.
Shekar Suman 30 March 2020