P RAMALAXMI Vs. PEETALA TATAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is one of the plaintiffs in the Court below, has come up with this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the order dated 1-8-2005 in O.S. No.506 of 1998 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kowur, holding that the scope of the suit is limited and the parties shall confine to the issues framed while adducing their evidence.

(2.) The suit was filed for cancellation of decree on the ground that fraud had been played in obtaining the decree. During the course of cross-examination of DW.1, on objection being raised that the cross- examination cannot be beyond the scope of suit, for which Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Court has to consider the fraud played by the plaintiff in O.S.No.777 of 1988 not only in the service of summons, but also the fraud played in bringing the documents in existence for actionable claim, whereas Counsel for the defendant urged that the scope of the suit is limited to where the suit summons are not served and if so, whether the plaintiff has played fraud in service of summons, cross-examination should be confined to the said extent only. The Court below found favour with the submission made by the defendant Counsel held that the plaintiff has to establish that the suit summons and the notices in execution petition were not served on them and that the defendant has played fraud in obtaining decree by suppressing the service of notice and summons. While holding so, the Court below directed the parties to confine to the issues framed while adducing their evidence.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Counsel for the respondent.