VALLADASU ALIVELU Vs. MOGUTHULA YADAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2009 passed in IA No.507 of 2009 in OS No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, at Deverakonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this civil revision petition by the plaintiff in OS No.63 of 2006 are: The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit being OS No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, against the respondents/defendants for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties. It is the version of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and she being the daughter of Moguthala Narsimha is entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties and whereas, the 1st defendant, who is her paternal uncle, is entitled for another half share. The defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. It is the version of the defendants that the plaintiff relinquished her share in the suit schedule properties under a document dated 22.5.1990 after receiving Rs.5,000/-. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The defendants got the relinquishment deed impounded and paid the necessary stamp duty and penalty on 7.9.2009 and marked the relinquishment deed on 14.9.2009. Both the parties closed their evidence. When the suit was coming up for arguments, the plaintiff filed IA No.507 of 2009 to send Ex.Bl relinquishment deed along with admitted thumb impressions of the plaintiff to the Director for State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for opinion. The defendants filed counter resisting the said application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff came up with the said application to delay the proceedings in the main suit, by order dated 15.12.2009. For better appreciation, I may refer para. 10 of the order impugned in the revision, which reads as hereunder:

(3.) Notice before admission came to order on 27.1.2010. The respondents entered appearance through a Counsel.