Change Of Counsel Not Proper Ground To Explain 10 Yr-Delay In Challenging Defendant's Statement, Seeking Reopening Of Evidence: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that change in counsel is not a ground for explaining the delay in filing a petition in the absence of cogent evidence supporting the claim.

The order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman in a batch of revision petitions filed by the plaintiff following the dismissal of pleas filed by him to receive certified copies of sale deeds, implead, reopen, and recall PW1 for further examination. The Bench said:

“The petitioner herein failed to give any explanation, much less plausible explanation with regard to the delay and the reasons except change of counsel which is not a proper ground. The petitioner herein having filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession has to prove his claim by producing cogent evidence. Though written statements were filed in the year 2012, the petitioner herein had filed the present IAs in the year 2022, that too, after cross-examining DWs.1 and 2 at length. Burden lies on the petitioner-plaintiff to prove his claim. He cannot depend on the weaknesses of the defendants.”

The plaintiff had filed the suit before the trial court for declaration and eviction. In his application, he had prayed to mark two sale deeds, to reopen the evidence so that the sale deeds could be marked, and to add an alleged encroacher of the suit-scheduled property.

The lower Court dismissed the applications holding that the sale deeds themselves were vague and did not support the plaintiff's case, and, anyway, since the plaintiff had not pleaded regarding the encroachment, he could not now rely on the weak case of the defendant instead of establishing his own title.

When the revision petitions were filed, the Bench noted that the petitioner/plaintiff claimed that upon changing his lawyer, he was advised to file the applications as a requisite for proper adjudication.

The Bench noted, that the petitioner/plaintiff that filed three different applications to receive three documents, two out of which, were certified copies of the same sale deed. The bench noted that this was improper.

Further, it was noted that the defendants had filed their written statement way back in 2012, despite that, the plaintiff waited for 10 years to file the present applications challenging the claim of the defendants.

With that observation, the Bench noted that the petitioner had failed to make out a case to interfere with the trial court order and the petitions were dismissed.

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.268 of 2023 & batch.

Counsel for petitioner: A Dheeraj appearing on behalf of D. Jaipal Reddy

Counsel for respondents: -na-

Click Here To Read/Download Order