THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Civil Revision Petition No.164 of 2020
ORDER:
This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order, dated 29.11.2019, dismissing I.A.No.606 of 2019 in O.S.No.58 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur, YSR Kadapa District, filed under Order XVIII Rule 16 CPC.
2. Heard Sri N. Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. Inspite of service of notice on respondents 1 to 4 & 6, none appeared on their behalf. The respondent nos.8 to 10 are shown to be not necessary parties to this revision petition.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against respondents 1 to 4 and injunction against respondents 5 to 7 on the strength of agreement of sale, dated 11.09.1998. After completion of the evidence on the plaintiffs' side, the suit is posted for evidence of the defendants. At that time, the defendants filed an application seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner for marking the documents and for cross-examination of DWs 1 to 4. The advocate commissioner so appointed treated the cross-examination of DWs 1 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.164 of 2020 to 4 as nil and filed his report without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The suit is posted to 24.06.2019 for judgment. The Tahasildar, who was examined as DW5, during his evidence deposed that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet (defendant No.6) conducted an enquiry and passed orders stating that the mutations in respect of the suit schedule lands were carried out by the then Tahasildar without considering the documents of the 1 st defendant and directed the Tahasildar, Pullampet, to conduct an enquiry with regard to the passbooks. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, who actually conducted the enquiry, has not come into the witness box to depose regarding the genuineness of the mutations. The respondents 1 to 4, taking advantage of the orders passed by the RDO, intended to disprove the passbooks and title deeds standing in the name of the plaintiffs. In the said facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs intended to examine the defendant No.6, i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, to prove the genuineness of his own records. Hence, the present petition was filed with a prayer to issue summons to defendant No.6, i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, to appear before the court and to give evidence with regard to the enquiry conducted in respect of the suit schedule property.
4. The respondents 5 to 7 filed counter opposing the petition and contending that the present petition was filed without sufficient 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.164 of 2020 reasons and reasonable cause. At the time of cross-examination of DW5, the counsel for the plaintiffs did not raise any objections/ points which are raised now and the present petition is intended only to drag on the proceedings. The petition is not maintainable. The cause of action for filing the petition is not tenable. The grounds raised are unsustainable. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The trial Court, by the order impugned in this revision, dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner came up with this petition after long time only in order to delay the proceedings.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff No.1 alone has preferred this revision. In the grounds of revision, it is mainly contended that the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition since summoning of the RDO is only to elicit the genuineness of the report which would also assist the trial Court in arriving at a just conclusion and that no prejudice would be caused to any of the defendants if the petition is allowed.
7. The purpose of summoning the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, is to cross-examine him on the enquiry conducted with regard to genuineness of the mutation. Admittedly, the RDO directed the Tahasildar, Pullampet (defendant No.7) to conduct enquiry with regard to mutation on the ground that it was done without considering the documents of the 1st defendant and 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.164 of 2020 thereafter, on the bass of the report of the said Tahasildar, the consequences were affected by the RDO. Therefore, it is the Tahasildar concerned who dealt with the enquiry and submitted the report basing on which the RDO has taken action. Already, the Tahasildar was examined as DW5 and he was thoroughly cross- examined. Since the RDO has merely acted on the enquiry report, any cross-examination on the details of the enquiry would be not within his personal knowledge. As such, no purpose would be served even by summoning the RDO, Rajampet (defendant No.6) to give evidence as requested by the petitioner. If at all, there is any error in conducting the enquiry, it can be culled out only in the cross-examination of DW5. Since his cross-examination was completed, there is no need to summon the RDO as sought for this purpose. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this revision.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 14-11-2022 RAR