Avulabalaiahgari Sivarami Reddy vs Avulabalaiahgari ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8704 AP

           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

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

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

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