IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5235 & 5256 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5235 OF 2009:
Between:
M/s. Jagath Swapna and Company, Jagtial, represented by its partners . PETITIONERS AND Mr. Dy.Jyothi Kumar Financial Property Administrator and others . RESPONDENTS CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5256 OF 2009:
Between:
M/s. Jagath Swapna and Company, Jagtial, represented by its partners . PETITIONERS AND Mr. Dy.Jyothi Kumar Financial Property Administrator and others . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5235 & 5256 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER:
These Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the order, dated 14.10.2009, in I.A.Nos.801 and 859 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2004, on the file of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, whereunder and whereby, the petitions filed and receive the original General Power Attorney (for short, “G.P.A.”) as evidence and to recall the evidence of DW.4 to give further evidence, were allowed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Original G.P.A. dated 27.12.1983 was executed by CSI Trust Association in favour of Rev.G.P.Deva Sayam, Bishop of Karimnagar Diacess and Rev.P.O.Ninan of Parkala Bishop. The said document was already marked through DW.2 when he was examined on 05.03.2007. Perhaps, that was not brought to the notice of the trial Court at the time of hearing I.A.No.801 of 2009, to receive the said document. When the document, original G.P.A. dated 27.12.1983, which is marked as Ex.B- 7, was already brought on record, question of receiving the self-same does not arise. Therefore, the impugned order in I.A.No.801 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2004 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
4. In view of the dismissal of the impugned order in I.A.No.801 of 2009, recalling of DW.4 to give further evidence for admission of the G.P.A. dated 27.12.1983 does not arise. Therefore, the impugned order in I.A.No.859 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2004 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
5. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, giving liberty to respondent Nos.1 to 7, if so advised, to file an application to re-call DW.2 for the purpose of giving clarification with regard to Ex.B-7 and on such application, the trial Court shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
K.C. BHANU, J June 25, 2010 MD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5235 & 5256 OF 2009 June 25, 2010