IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4240 of 2014 BETWEEN Gajula Mahalakshamma and two others.
... PETITIONERS AND Dontala Anjaiah and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. M.V. RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.A.No.407 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, filed an application being I.A.No.1517 of 2014 seeking to summon the Tahsildar, S.N. Padu Mandal; Station House Offcier, S.N Padu and Mandal Surveyor to give evidence.
2. Respondents filed a counter opposing the said application contending that the documents filed by the defendants are not yet marked on behalf of the defendants but even before that the petitioners want to summon the officers from S.N. Padu Mandal and as such, the summoning the officers sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted.
3. The trial Court considered the said application and under the impugned order dated 07.10.2014 dismissed the petitioners’ application. This revision is filed questioning the said order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am unable to see any error in the order passed by the trial Court inasmuch as the petitioners want to summon the said officers/witnesses to disprove the documents, which have yet been admitted on behalf of the respondents/defendants and as such, the question of disproving them, at this stage, does not arise.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that even the respondents will have to call the aforesaid officers to mark the documents.
6. If that be so, the petitioners, in any case, would get an opportunity to cross-examine the said officers. Hence, even otherwise the present application is premature and was rightly rejected by the trial Court. I do not see any error to interfere with the order impugned.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 27, 2014 DSK