Among the legal representatives, one Smt.
3360 of 2005 in and by which the learned Judge upheld the order dated 24.02.2005 of the Xth Additional Chief Judge Fast Track Court , City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.
Brief facts in nutshell are The first defendant in O.S. No.
The learned trial Judge directed the defendants to restrict themselves relating to the right of Smt.
22134 of 2000, it was clarified that there is numberneed to record the entire evidence afresh, but Smt.
The said order of the learned single Judge was challenged by the plaintiff by filing L.P.A. No.
The suit was resisted by filing written statements by 1st and 4th defendants.
94 of 1987, it is open to the parties to lead evidence only in respect of the defence taken in the written statement of newly impleaded defendant.
A. Annapurna, one of the legal representatives, the decree was defective, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to permit Smt.
A. Annapurna over the suit scheduled property for the purpose of leading evidence and saying so returned the additional affidavit filed by DW 1 with a direction to file a fresh affidavit companyfining to the right of the 8th defendant as per the direction of the High Court.
A. Annapurna was added as a party and she also filed her written statement.
A. Annapurna, daughter of late Seshachalapathi, was number brought on record since the application to bring her on record came to be dismissed due to number payment of process fee.
141, 142 and 143 and buildings belonging to one late Salarjung, the plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration of title and for companysequential possession.
Though learned companynsel for the appellant strenuously companytended that after remand and after framing additional issues, the appellant is entitled to lead fresh evidence, in view of clarificatory order dated 5.7.2001 in Civil Misc.
After allowing Smt.
3360 of 2005 before the High Court under Art.
27 of 1997 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
DW 1 sought to file an additional affidavit in lieu of chief examination introducing many documents.
During the pendency of the suit, Seshachalapathi died and his legal representatives were sought to be brought on record in I.A. No.
A. Annapurna to companye on record.
227 of the Constitution of India.
24776 OF 2005 Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
1, 2 4.
Thereafter, the matter was heard by learned single Judge and by order dated 07.03.2000, the learned single Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the matter for de numbero enquiry with a direction to permit Smt.
The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned single Judge and remitted the matter to the learned single Judge with a direction to re hear the matter insofar as respondent No.8 is companycerned who was transposed as appellant No.3 and companysider the validity of the decree passed during the absence of respondent No.8 amongst other matters on merits.
189 of 1983.
The appeal was filed before the High Court at the instance of defendant Nos.
A. Annapurna to companye on record and to companysider her written statement.
Heard learned companynsel for both the parties.
Arising out of SLP C No.
In respect of the agricultural land measuring Acs.
After the said clarification, Smt.
Petition No.
The respondent herein was the plaintiff in that suit.
The Suit was filed originally against K.S. Krishna Sarma, the appellant herein, and one Seshachalapathi as defendants.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.09.2005 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.R.P. No.
Other legal representatives were brought on record.
A. Annapurna should be permitted to companye on record and file her written statement and decide the matter insofar as her interest is companycerned.
32.00 companyering Survey Nos.
The learned single Judge, in the light of the earlier orders, particularly, order dated 5.7.2001 clarifying earlier order dated 07.03.2000, dismissed the revision in limine and upheld the order of the trial Judge.
Questioning the said order, the 1st defendant has filed the present appeal after getting leave from this Court.
PW 1 was recalled and re examined.
The said order dated 24.02.2005 of the Xth Additional Chief Judge was challenged by way of R.P. No.
296 of 1982.
296 of 1982 on the file of the Xth Additional Chief Judge Fast Track Court , City Civil Court, Hyderabad is the appellant in the present appeal.
Finally, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
The only point for companysideration in this appeal is whether the appellant 1st defendant is entitled to lead evidence in respect of all issues including additional issues afresh or to be companyfined only in respect of 8th defendant who was subsequently impleaded on the orders of the High Court?
In an application for clarification, i.e. M.P. No.
22134 of 2000 in C.C.C.A. No.
Learned single Judge of the High Court, after finding that in the absence of Smt.
