GULLIPALLI NARAM NAIDU Vs. KINTHALI KUMARASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ese two Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by a common order for they arise of two different interlocutory orders passed in the same suit being O.S. No. 37 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili.

(2.) C.R.P. No. 3818 of 2002 is directed against the order dated 14-8-2002, passed by the Junior Civil Judge allowing the application, filed by the plaintiff-respondent in I.A. No. 485 of 1999, under Order XIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short 'CPC') for receiving the registered sale deed, dated 12-10-1988, namely the original of Ex. A1. While C.R.P. No. 3819 of 2002 is directed against the order dated 14-8-2002, passed by the Junior Civil Judge allowing the application, filed by the plaintiff-respondent in I.A. No. 486 of 1999, under Order XVIII, Rule 17, CPC for recalling P.W. 1 for marking the registered sale deed dated 12-10-1988.

(3.) In the affidavits filed in support of the aforementioned applications, it is stated by the plaintiff-respondent, that his father was examined as P.W. 1 on his behalf. At the time of examination of P.W. 1, he could not file the original registered sale deed dated 12-10-1988 because the same was misplaced, and despite his due diligence, he could not trace it. Therefore, he filed the certified copy of the original registered sale deed, which was marked as Ex. A1. Now that the original registered sale deed has been traced, and in view of the fact that the said document is very crucial to prove his title over the suit schedule property, he prays that the said document be received, and P.W. 1 be recalled for marking the same in evidence.