MARY HEMALATHA Vs. ARUL GABRIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the Common Order wherein the petitioner herein had filed two applications viz., (i) an application filed under Order 26, Rule 10(A) r/w Section 151 of CPC (ii) an application filed under Section 75 of CPC to issue subpoena for the production of the records from the authority of the officer, and both the applications were dismissed.

(2.) The main ground on which the applications came to be rejected was that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner herein in approaching the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even on a bare perusal of the signatures in the disputed Will as well as in the letter received from Central Public Information Officer, there is variation in the signatures.

(3.) By relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Jalagadugula Eswara Rao v. Davala Surya Rao</A>, (2011) AIR A.P. 78, the learned counsel submitted that the application ought to have been allowed irrespective of the stage of the case.