VIYYAPU APPARAO Vs. KANTIMAHANTI PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed, under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the I Additional District Judge -cum -Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam in I.A. No.915 of 2015 in O.S.No.135 of 2010 dated 12.11.2015.

(2.) THE application, in I.A.No.915 of 2015, was filed under Sec. 151 C.P.C. to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff for adducing further evidence on his behalf. The suit in O.S. No.135 of 2010 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The petitioner -plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, and examined the attestors of the agreement of sale as P.Ws.2 and 3. During his cross -examination, P.W.1 (the plaintiff) stated that he was not going to examine the document writer. In further cross -examination, P.W.1 also stated that he was going to examine the attestors of Ex.A.1, and he had no objection to record the cross -examination of both the witnesses at the same time.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the attestors of the document i.e P.Ws.2 and 3 are said to have been examined, and to have been unable to identify the signatory of the document. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to examine P.W.4, the document writer, though earlier he had stated, in cross -examination, that he would not examine him.