Rayapaneni Umadevi vs. Bheemineni Vamsi Kiran

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1833 of 2019

ORDER:

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 07.06.2019 passed in I.A.No.257 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 by the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby the petition filed under Order XIII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "C.P.C.") to send for the original document dated 14.12.2007 from the record room of District Court in O.S.No.142 of 2008 to the file of O.S.No.81 of 2010.

The petitioners are the plaintiffs and filed suit for declaration that the decree in O.S.No.142 of 2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District is null and void and for other consequential reliefs.

The main ground for claiming such relief is that the petitioners purchased the property from the agreement holder of defendant No.2 by registered sale deed dated 12.04.2010 and that the suit O.S.No.142 of 2008 was filed by defendant No.1 against defendant No.2 and obtained exparte decree based on the alleged forged document, forging the signature of defendant No.2 herein and that the stamp vendor was also suspended. Therefore, the decree is not binding on the petitioners.

Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 alone filed counter raising several contentions. However, the trial of suit is completed, the trial Court heard argument of plaintiff and defendant and reserved the suit for judgment. On 19.08.2019, two applications were filed i.e. one to reopen the case and other to recall the witnesses. The said two petitions were posted for enquiry and they are pending.

Once the arguments of parties heard and reserved for judgment, parties have no role to play except pronouncing judgment by Judge. At this stage, evidence of parties cannot be reopened in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in "Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others**¹"** But, that is not the issue before this Court. By the date of filing of I.A.No.257 of 2019, no petition was filed to reopen or recall witness to prove the document. However, the purpose of filing the petition is to substantiate the contention that the original agreement dated 14.12.2007 is forged, but the trial Court dismissed the petition on various grounds.

It appears from the record, the trial Court considered the admissibility of the document in view of the Andhra Pradesh amendment to Section 17 of the Registration Act with effect from 01.04.1999 and recorded a finding about the admissibility of document proposed to be sent for, in the petition itself. The trial Court travelled beyond the scope of the petition and recorded a finding as to the admissibility of the document to be sent for. Therefore, dismissal of the petition on the ground that it is not admissible is an illegality. In any view of the matter, certified copy of the document is marked as Ex.A.32 in the evidence of P.W.1. To prove the original of Ex.A.32 is forged, the petitioners filed the present petition without filing the petitions to reopen and recall of witnesses and that the said two petitions were filed subsequent to dismissal of the petition by the trial Court as admitted by both

2

¹ AIR 1964 SC 993

parties. Therefore, no purpose will be served even if the document is sent for by exercising power under Order XIII Rule 10 of C.P.C. unless the evidence of the petitioner is reopened and witness is recalled. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be interfered. However, in the event of allowing the petitions filed for reopen and recall of witnesses, the petitioners may renew their request.

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioners to renew their request in the event the petitions filed for reopen and recall the witnesses are allowed. No costs.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

22.08.2019 Ksp