Order XVI Rule 3 read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908= an application filed under Order XVI Rule 3 read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking issue of a witness summon to the former Sub-Registrar of Guntur one Mr. M. Abraham, presently working as District Registrar, Nandyal, Kurnool District for recording his testimony of execution of Ex.A2-Will. - as per the provisions of Sec.74 of the Evidence Act, Ex.A2-registered Will is a public document and certified copies thereof can be proved and since the Sub-Registrar who registered the Will is a public authority, courts are entitled to presume that judicial or officials acts have been regularly performed. The court below further held that the Sub-Registrar who registered the Will cannot be a witness either to the execution or attestation of the Will and that all these circumstances only establish that the application is filed on frivolous and irrelevant grounds to protract the litigation in a suit of the year 2006. This Court finds no error in exercise of discretion by the court below in rejecting I.A.No.1192 of 2012 in O.S.No.445 of 2006, warranting supervisory intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution.


CRP 687 / 2013

CRPSR 3930 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
DASARI BHANU PADMA  VSKATURI BHASKARA RAO & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : ANANTHA KRISHNARESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  GUNTUR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE
GODA RAGHURAM

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 687 of 2013


Dated: 22-2-2013



Oral Order:

          This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is misconceived.  The plaintiff in O.S.No.445 of 2006 has filed this revision against the order dated 21-9-2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, rejecting I.A.No.1192 of 2012, an application filed under Order XVI Rule 3 read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking issue of a witness summon to the former Sub-Registrar of Guntur one Mr. M. Abraham, presently working as District Registrar, Nandyal, Kurnool District for recording his testimony of execution of Ex.A2-Will.  
O.S.No.445 of 2006 was filed by the revision petitioner for declaration of title on the basis of Ex.A2-registered Will.  
Recording evidence in the suit was concluded and the suit was coming up for arguments.  At that stage and six years after the institution of the suit was the application I.A.No.1192 of 2012 filed by the revision petitioner.
          In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner pleaded that the then Sub-Registrar who had registered Ex.A2-Will was transferred and only recently she learnt about the whereabouts of the then Sub-Registrar; that since all these years she could not secure information about the whereabouts of the then Sub-Registrar who registered Ex.A2-Will and and his testimony is essential to prove the Will.  
The defendant contested this application asserting that the application was filed only for protracting the proceedings, that the Sub-Registrar was discharging his official functions as per provisions of the Registration Act and cannot be summoned as a witness to prove the execution and attestation of the Will; and hence the application should be rejected.
          The court below while rejecting the application observed that as per the provisions of Sec.74 of the Evidence Act, Ex.A2-registered Will is a public document and certified copies thereof can be proved and since the Sub-Registrar who registered the Will is a public authority, courts are entitled to presume that judicial or officials acts have been regularly performed. The court below further held that the Sub-Registrar who registered the Will cannot be a witness either to the execution or attestation of the Will and that all these circumstances only establish that the application is filed on frivolous and irrelevant grounds to protract the litigation in a suit of the year 2006.  This Court finds no error in exercise of discretion by the court below in rejecting I.A.No.1192 of 2012 in O.S.No.445 of 2006, warranting supervisory intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution.
          The revision is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
          Sri Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner would however submit that the petitioner would file an application for appropriate relief including for summoning the official records from the Sub-Registrar’s Office where Ex.A2-Will was registered and liberty for the same be given.  No such liberty is required from this Court.  If the petitioner files any such application, the same may be considered by the court below in accordance with its discretion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.  This revision is without merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission.

________________________
GODA RAGHURAM, J
Date: 22-2-2013.

GRR


Comments