THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1728 OF 2007 DATED: 24-06-2010 Between:
Chodavarapu Nagaraju.
. PETITIONER And Shaik Madar (died) & another.
. RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 02-04-2007, in I.A.No.204 of 2007 in O.S.No.650 of 2002 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-D1 was dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the record.
3. 2nd respondent-plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner-D1 and the 1st respondent-D2 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, the 1st respondent herein-D1 died. The trial of the suit is in progress, recording of the evidence on both sides is completed, and the matter stood at the stage of hearing arguments. At that stage, petitioner-D1 filed an application in I.A.No.204 of 2007 seeking issuance of summons to the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada to cause production of certain documents, which are said to contain the thumb impressions of D1. The said application was opposed by the 2nd respondent and the plaintiff on the ground that the application is highly belated, having not been filed at the stage of arguments, and secondly the genuineness of the documents is not so much in dispute, but the competence of D2 to execute the said document in favour of D1 is in question.
4. According to the petitioner-D1, the suit schedule property i.e. Quarter No.249 was sold to him by D2 under agreement of sale–cum-GPA on 25-02-1991. Respondent-plaintiff would contend that by that date, D2 had no rights over the property as the Government executed a registered document in favour of D2 in respect of the said property only on 22-05-2001 i.e. about ten years after the alleged agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner-D1. The 2nd respondent-plaintiff would therefore contend that when D2 himself had no rights in the property as on the date of agreement of sale, dated 25- 02-1991, he has no competence to execute the said document and convey any rights in favour of the petitioner-D1. The question as to whether or not D2 had any rights over the property and had any competence to convey the same in favour of D1 as on 25-02-1991 is a matter to be considered on the basis of the evidence already adduced. The summoning of the registers, containing the thumb impressions of D2 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, is therefore not required for deciding the dispute on hand and the same does not have any reliance or bearing over the decision to be arrived at.
5. Under those circumstances, the trial Court has rightly refused to grant permission for summoning the documents as prayed for. The impugned order does not call for any interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 19-04-2007 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th June, 2010. Tsy