VATTIKONDA V ANANTHARAMA RAO Vs. VORUGANTI NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2009 passed in OS No.52 of 2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, the defendant has filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Voruganti Narayana Rao, the plaintiff filed the suit against Vatlikanda V. Anantharama Rao, the defendant, for eviction and damages. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement The plea of the defendant is that he purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale from Para Seethaiah and he issued notice to Seethaiah to execute a registered sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale. The trial Court settled the issues and the plaintiff adduced evidence on his behalf. The defendant commenced evidence on his behalf. He filed LA. No.55 of 2007 to summon his vendor-/P. Seethaiah for cross-examination. The trial Court, allowed the application, by order dated 5.12.2007. The plaintiff assailed the order dated 5.12.2007 by filing CRP No.5855 of 2007. The said CRP came to be allowed on 29.4.2008. The relevant portion of the order passed in the said CRP reads as hereunder:

(3.) After disposal of the CRP No.5855 of 2007, the defendant summoned his vendor-Seethaiah as witness, Seethaiah has been examined in chief on 12.10,2009 as DW9. He stated in the chief-examination that he cancelled the agreement executed in favour of the defendant and returned the earnest money and thereafter, he sold the property to the plaintiff under a registered document. At that stage, the defendant sought permission of the Court to put questions to witness that may be put during cross- examination. The plaintiff objected for granting such permission to the defendant. The trial Court on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties sustained the objection of the plaintiff, by order dated 26-10.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision,