Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 986 (AP)

K. Kesava Reddy v. K. Deepalakshmi

2001-09-06

R.RAMANUJAM

body2001
R. RAMANUJAM, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Civil Revision Petitions are against the orders of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur dated 17-8-2001 dismissing I. A. Nos. 1701 and 1700 of 2001 in O. S. No. 409 of 1995. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the plaintiff in o. S. No. 409 of 1995. He filed the said suit against his father (3rd respondent- defendant, who is no more), brothers and sisters, who are the respondents-defendants, for declaration that the gift deed executed by his mother on 25-11-1991 in favour of the 1st respondent-defendant, who is a daughter of one of his brothers, is a forged one. The trial of the suit was commenced on 25-2-1999 and was completed on 19-12-2000 and since then the suit is being posted for arguments. However, the arguments could not be completed due to the non-co-operative attitude adopted by the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondents-defendants 7 to 10, who were supporting the petitioner- plaintiff. During the course of trial, the petitioner-plaintiff filed I. A. No. 1730 of 2000 to send the disputed gift deed dated 25-11-1991 to the Finger Print Expert along with thumb impression register Ex. X-l, which was summoned from the Sub- registrar and Ex. X-3 sale deed dated 14-3-1984 for comparison. It appears that the said application was dismissed on 2-8-2000 on the ground that the particulars of the impugned gift deed were not correctly stated. More than one year thereafter, at the stage of arguments in the suit, on 6-8-2001, the petitioner-plaintiff filed application in ia. No. 1701 of 2001 again seeking the same relief i. e. , sending the gift deed dated 25-11-1991 to a Finger Print Expert for comparison and also filed an application in i. A. No. 1700 of 2001 seeking to reopen the suit. The application in I. A. No. 1701 of 2001 filed for sending the disputed gift deed to the Finger Print Expert was dismissed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge on the ground that there are no bona fides in the petition and the same was filed only to protract the litigation. Consequently, I. A. No. 1700 of 2001, which was filed for reopening the suit, was also dismissed. Consequently, I. A. No. 1700 of 2001, which was filed for reopening the suit, was also dismissed. ( 3 ) RELYING upon a decision of this Court in Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi v. Posina satyanarayana and another, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a petition filed for sending a disputed document to a Handwriting Expert cannot be dismissed on the ground that the application is belated and, therefore, the orders under revision cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The suit is of the year 1995. The evidence on both sides was closed on 19-12-2000 and since then the suit is being posted for arguments from time to time. Unfortunately, the learned Principal Junior civil Judge could not proceed with the case because of the non-co-operative attitude adopted by the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondents-defendants 7 to 10 who were filing one petition or the other to stall the proceedings. The learned Principal Junior civil Judge in his order specifically mentioned this fact. It is also pertinent to note here that when the suit was posted for arguments on 3-8-2001, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondents-defendants 7 to 10 till 3. 30 p. m. This fact was also specifically mentioned by the learned principal Junior Civil Judge in his order. This attitude of the petitioner-plaintiff clearly reveals his intention to protract the litigation on some ground or the other. Having thus succeeded in protracting the litigation, the petitioner-plaintiff then filed the present application i. e. , I. A. No. 1701 of 2001 on 6-8-2001. As already noted, similar application i. e. , I. A. No. 1730 of 2000 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed on 2-8-2000, admittedly, on some technical ground. Instead of filing another application immediately after dismissal of I. A. No. 1730 of 2000, the petitioner-plaintiff has chosen to file the present application i. e. LA. No. 1701 of 2001 after a lapse of almost one year. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to explain away the aforesaid delay by stating that the petitioner-plaintiff has approached this Court, when the learned principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed la. No. 2746 of 2000 filed for reopening of the suit to adduce further evidence, by filing c. R. P. NO. 512 of 2001. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to explain away the aforesaid delay by stating that the petitioner-plaintiff has approached this Court, when the learned principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed la. No. 2746 of 2000 filed for reopening of the suit to adduce further evidence, by filing c. R. P. NO. 512 of 2001. It may be noted here that this Court dismissed the said C. R. P. at the admission stage itself. Be that as it may, filing of C. R. P. in this Court against the dismissal of the said I. A. No. 2746 of 2000 cannot be a ground for not filing the present application i. e. , I. A. No. 1701 of 2001 immediately after dismissal of the earlier application. The learned Principal Junior civil Judge is, therefore, right in his conclusion that the applications filed by the petitioner-plaintiff lack bona fides. In my considered view, the decision of this Court in Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi v. Posina satyanarayana and another (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I conclude that C. R. P. No. 3801 of 2001 has to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs at the admission stage. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid order, c. R. P. No. 3882 of 2001, which was filed against the order in I. A. No. 1700 of 2001 for reopening of the suit, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.