PENMATSA PADA Vs. INDUKURI SEETAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramachandra Raju, the Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri L Venugopal, representing Chalia Dhananjaya, the Counsel for respondents.

(2.) The revision petitioner had preferred the present revision petition aggrieved by the order made in LA. No.438 of 2003 in O.S. No.481 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

(3.) The petitioner filed the said application under Order 16 Rules 6 and 7 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as Code for the purpose of convenience, to summon the Sub-Registrar, Bhimavaram, to produce the original Will dated 24.6.1992 Document No. 100 of 1992, executed by Penmatsa China Venkatraju. The said application was resisted by the respondents by filing a counter in detail. The learned Judge, in fact, virtually prima facie had decided the validity of the Will making certain observations and ultimately, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred.