JASTI PURNACHANDRA RAO Vs. JASTI LEELA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 14-6-2011 in I.A. No. 664 of 2011 in O.S. No. 62 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Judge, Guntur.

(2.) The petitioners are defendants 1 and 5 in O.S. No. 62 of 2009 instituted by respondent No. 1 for partition and allotment of her share in the suit schedule properties. The petitioners have filed I.A. No. 664 of 2011 for summoning one Somavarapu Sambasiva Rao as a witness for the purpose of confirmation of original sale deed No. 2970/1993. The said application having been dismissed by the Court below, the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition.

(3.) In support of the order dismissing the petitioners' application, the Court below has assigned two reasons, namely, that the petitioners, who are parties to the sale deed in question, were supposed to have knowledge of execution of the sale deed and that they have not taken any steps to summon the said document and also one Somavarapu Sambasiva Rao, who is purchaser of the property as a witness, to prove execution of the sale deed and that no plausible explanation was given by the petitioners for failure to take steps in this regard till the evidence of both sides was closed, arguments of the plaintiff were heard and the suit was posted for hearing of arguments of the petitioners. The other reason given by the Court below is that I.A. No. 5804 of 2010 filed by the petitioners earlier for summoning the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Gorantla, to produce the original sale deed, was dismissed and that the said order has become final and therefore summoning the purchaser under the document without the sale deed available on record will not serve any purpose.