JOHN SANTIYAGO Vs. CLEMENT DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order of dismissal dated 16.03.2012 of the learned XI Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, made in I.A. Nos. 214, 215 and 216 of 2012 in O.S. No. 559 of 2006 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs; to recall PW 1 for the purpose of marking/exhibiting two documents viz., (i) Covering letter dated 11.04.2011 addressed to the first plaintiff by a Public Information Officer/DAG (Administration) and (ii) Form of application for service pension/Family Pension/Retirement Gratuity/Service Gratuity/Commutation submitted by Smt. Chaya Devi showing her as the wife of Sri S.S. Dass; and to receive the aforementioned two documents on file after according necessary leave and by condoning the delay in filing the said documents. The facts that are necessary for consideration and for arriving at just decision in these civil revision petitions, in brief, are as under:

(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petitions are already stated supra, in detail. In a suit for partition, the plaintiffs are claiming that the father of the defendants, S.S. Dass, is also their father and that they are the children of the said S.S. Dass through their mother Mrs. Chaya Devi. The said contention of the plaintiffs was denied in the defence of the defendants. Since the relationship of the plaintiffs' mother, Chaya Devi with S.S. Dass, the father of the defendants was in dispute and was in issue, the plaintiffs intended to file one more document namely, the copy of the form of application for service pension/Family Pension/Retirement Gratuity/Service Gratuity/Commutation submitted by Smt. Chaya Devi showing her as the wife of Sri S.S. Dass, to prove their contention. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs obtained this document having had resort to the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the said document was supplied to the plaintiffs along with a covering letter dated 11.4.2011 by the Officer concerned. In fact one of the two documents i.e., the letter dated 11.04.2011, was confronted to D.W. 1 in his cross examination and was already exhibited, as exhibit B16.