Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 85 (AP)

Jasti Purnachandra Rao v. Jasti Leela Kumari

2012-01-25

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 14-6-2011 in I.A.No.664 of 2011 in O.S.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Judge, Guntur. 2. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 5 in O.S.No.62 of 2009 instituted by respondent No.1 for partition and allotment of her share in the suit schedule properties. The petitioners have filed I.A.No.664 of 2011 for summoning one Somavarapu Sambasiva Rao as a witness for the purpose of confirmation of original sale deed No.2970/1993. The said application having been dismissed by the Court below, the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition. 3. In support of the order dismissing the petitioners’ application, the Court below has assigned two reasons, namely, that the petitioners, who are parties to the sale deed in question, were supposed to have knowledge of execution of the sale deed and that they have not taken any steps to summon the said document and also one Somavarapu Sambasiva Rao, who is purchaser of the property as a witness, to prove execution of the sale deed and that no plausible explanation was given by the petitioners for failure to take steps in this regard till the evidence of both sides was closed, arguments of the plaintiff were heard and the suit was posted for hearing of arguments of the petitioners. The other reason given by the Court below is that I.A.No.5804 of 2010 filed by the petitioners earlier for summoning the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Gorantla, to produce the original sale deed, was dismissed and that the said order has become final and therefore summoning the purchaser under the document without the sale deed available on record will not serve any purpose. 4. At the hearing, Sri P.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the finding of the Court below that the sale deed is not on record is not correct because certified copy of the sale deed was marked as Ex.B-5 and that with reference to the said document, the purchaser thereunder could be examined if summoned. 5. On a careful consideration of this submission, I find merit therein. In the affidavit as well as the petition in I.A.No.664 of 2011, the petitioners have referred to Ex.B-5 a copy of original sale deed dated 30-8-1993. Therefore, to this extent the finding of the Court below may not be sustainable. 6. 5. On a careful consideration of this submission, I find merit therein. In the affidavit as well as the petition in I.A.No.664 of 2011, the petitioners have referred to Ex.B-5 a copy of original sale deed dated 30-8-1993. Therefore, to this extent the finding of the Court below may not be sustainable. 6. But the question that still remains to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief claimed by them in I.A.No.664 of 2011. The petitioners have earlier filed I.A.No.5804 of 2010 seeking summoning of the Branch Manager along with the original sale deed. The said application was dismissed and the order passed therein has attained finality. If the petitioners were diligent enough, they ought to have filed appropriate application at that stage itself for summoning the purchaser under the document. After the entire evidence was closed and the arguments on the side of the plaintiff were completed, the application filed by the petitioners for summoning the purchaser under a document as a witness is too belated and the same reflects lack of bona fides of the petitioners. 7. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 8. As a sequel to the dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4731 of 2011 is also dismissed.