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

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.