THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4600 OF 2013 AND 674 OF 2014 Dated:05-09-2014
Between:
Syed Faheem Khadri ... PETITIONER AND Smt. Vanam Bharathamma and three others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4600 OF 2013 AND 674 OF 2014
COMMON ORDER:
The 1st respondent filed O.S No. 4050 of 2003 in the Court of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.
The trial of the suit commenced and at a very advanced stage, the petitioner filed two applications viz., I.A Nos. 173 and 174 of 2013. The first application was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer to send the vakalat, plaint and affidavit in I.A Nos. 512 and 513 of 2013 and signatures/thumb impressions on the deposition of PW 3 to an expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad. I.A No. 174 of 2013 was filed with a prayer to direct the Sub-Registrar (Births and Deaths), Circle-7, Hyderabad to produce the record of births and deaths register of 1999 containing the thumb impression of Smt. V.
Bharathamma, the 1st respondent herein. He doubted the very gunuinity of the personality of the 1st respondent. The trial Court dismissed the applications through common order dated 22-08- 2012. Hence, the revisions.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
The basis on which the applications are filed by the petitioner is outside the scope of the suit. Even the stage at which the applications were filed, is objectionable. The relief claimed in the suit is the one for injunction simplicitor. It is for the 1st respondent to establish her possession over the suit schedule property. The petitioner cannot be permitted to undertake a roving enquiry going to the extent of disputing the very identity of the 1st respondent. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that another person with the same name and description, as the 1st respondent, exists. The applications are filed only with a view to protract the proceedings. More than a decade has elapsed since the suit was filed.
The revisions are accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take up the suit on priority basis and dispose of the same, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 05-09-2014 ks