MACHA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. MACHA ANASURYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit. He preferred this revision against an order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, allowing I.A.No.740 of 2001 in O.S. No.9 of 1991, which was filed for summoning one Mr. B. Ramachandraiah, Advocate for the 2nd defendant in the suit (2nd respondent herein) who allegedly attested the will (Ex.A-1) executed by the husband of the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts that led to the filing of this revision are that the 1st respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, is the second wife of one late Macha Komaraiah. Late Komaraiah is the father of the revision petitioner (1st defendant). The 2nd respondent herein (2nd defendant) is the adopt son of the said late Komaraiah. According to the plaintiff, the said late Komaraiah executed a will (marked as Ex.A-1 in the suit) in her favour in the year 1981 bequeathing certain property and that one Sri B. Ramachandraiah, Advocate, is one of the attestors to the said will. Basing on the said will executed by late Komaraiah, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit i.e., O.S. No.9 of 1991 against the defendants 1 and 2, who are the sons of late Komaraiah, for partition of the joint family property and for separate possession. While so, the alleged attestor of the said will (Ex.A-1) Sri B. Ramachandraiah, a practising advocate, happened to file vakalat in the suit on behalf of the adoptive son i.e., 2nd defendant.

(3.) During the course of trial of the suit, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.I and her examination was over on 5-11-2001. On 20-11-2001, P.Ws.2 and 3 were also examined on behalf of the plaintiff. At that juncture, the plaintiff has come forward with the present petition under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. praying the court to summon the advocate of the 2nd defendant Sri B. Ramachandraiah to be examined on her side for the purpose of proving the will (Ex.A-1) as its attestor. Sri Ramachandriah, who received the petition copy, initially opposed the said petition but subsequently on 7-12-2001 he reported no Instructions on behalf of the 2nd defendant as he is one of the attestors of Ex.A-1 will. The court below after hearing all the parties allowed the said LA. by its order dated 22-1-2002 and summoned Sri B. Ramachandriah as one of the witnesses of the plaintiff. As against the said order, the 1st defendant filed this revision.