B.Malini vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4768 AP

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                      C.R.P.No.3617 of 2019
ORDER:

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.141 of 2014 on the file

of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty for permanent injunction restraining

the respondents herein from interfering with the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit schedule property.

2. The petitioner has stated in the plaint that this property had

been sold by one Smt M. Lakshmidevi to one Sri Rama Nagaraju by

way of sale deed dated 20.04.2010. In the written statement, the

respondents had admitted that such deed of sale had been executed

by Smt M. Lakshmidevi. However, this deed of sale was described as

a transaction of mortgage and not a deed of sale and subsequently,

Sri Rama Nagaraju had conveyed the property to

Smt M. Lakshmidevi.

3. The petitioner in the course of trial had marked this deed of

sale dated 20.04.2010 as Ex-A1. Therefore, the petitioner moved

I.A.No.634 of 2019 in OS.No.141 of 2014, to summon the

Sub-Registrar, Gooty for the purpose of proving the execution of

Ex-A1 and another document which is the registered deed of sale

dated 15.04.2013 which was marked as Ex A-2.

4. This application was dismissed by the trial Judge, after

perusing the application as well as the counter filed by the

respondents. The view taken by the trial Judge was that, the

respondents had never disputed the execution of these two (2)

documents and had infact admitted the execution of these

documents in the written statement and consequently, there is no

need to summon the sub-registrar for proving the said document.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this

Court by way of preferring the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Sri K. Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the order of the trial Court is violative of provisions of

Order XVI Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C which grants the party every right to

file an application seeking summons to be issued to the witnesses

either to give evidence or to produce documents and he relied upon

the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court

of Andhra Pradesh in "M. Dhananjaiah Goud V. Mogudampally

Chandraiah and others", reported in (2008) 4 ALT 227 : (2008) 4

AndhLD 678. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

the trial Judge had not taken into account the fact that mere

marking of document is not proof of the said document and should

have permitted the petitioner to summon the Sub-Registrar.

7. In view of the fact that the respondents have not disputed the

execution of the aforesaid two (2) documents and in view of the fact

that the respondents have positively admitted the execution of these

two (2) documents, the question of any lack of proof of documents

would not arise as these are the documents which have been

admitted by the other side.

8. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that further proof is necessary would not arise.

In the circumstances, I donot find any merits in the present

Revision petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Dated: 22.11.2021 EPS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

C.R.P.No.3617 of 2019

Date:22-11-2021

EPS