RASOOL BEE Vs. FATHIMA BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner filed O.S.No. 8 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet against the respondents herein for the relief of partition and other ancillary reliefs. The trial of the suit commenced and the recording of the evidence was closed. At that stage, the respondents filed I.A.No. 423 of 2002 to reopen the evidence and I.A.No. 453 of 2002 to summon the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Noothankal as a witness. Both the IAs were allowed and the Mandal Revenue Inspector was examined as D.W. 6. Through him, documents Exs. B-8 to B-13 were marked.

(2.) Petitioner wanted to verify the correctness and genuinity of documents Exs. B-8 to B-13. She has submitted an application to the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, to furnish certified copies of the said documents. She was replied through a letter dt. 17-10-2002 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, stating that the record pertaining to the said documents is not traceable.

(3.) Suspecting the genuinity and authenticity of Exs. B-8 to B-13, she filed I.A.No. 569 of 2002 to reopen the evidence and I.A.No. 570 of 2002 to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet. Through identical, but separate orders dated 25-10-2002, the trial court dismissed the I.As. C.R.P.No. 4509 of 2003 is filed against the order in I.A.No. 569 of 2002, whereas C.R.P.No. 4828 of 2003 is filed against the order in I.A.No. 570 of 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exs. B-8 to B-13 are the alleged documents and records from the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, whereas they were got marked through D.W. 6, who was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector at Noothankal. He further submits that once it has emerged that the original record relating to the said documents is not traceable, there is any amount of doubt on the truth or correctness of the evidence of D.W. 6 and it was imperative for the trial court to permit the petitioner to examine the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet.