P SEETHAMMA Vs. P RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is fHed by the plaintiffs questioning the order passed under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC refusing leave to the petitioners to serve interrogatories on the respondents.

(2.) The suit is filed for partition and separate possession which is based on the will executed by Utukuru Yellamma on 10-8-1960 in favour of the first plaintiff's husband. The respondents are contesting the suit. Evidence was also recorded by both sides and the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners filed the application on the ground that they came to know that the fourth respondent executed a registered will dt.1-3-1987 which contains a declaration that she inherited the property from her foster mother Utukuru Yellamma. The lower Court dismissed the said application. Hence this revision.

(3.) Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners had no opportunity to know about the execution of the registered will by the fourth respondent, they could not file the interrogatories earlier and the lower Court should have allowed the said application in the interest of justice in view of Section 30 CPC . Sri P. Nagaraja Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the impugned order passed by the lower Court is not a case decided and as such has taken a preliminary objection that the C.R.P. is not maintainable. He places reliance on the decision of the Mysore High Court in Venkateswam Rao vs. K. Nagamma and the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Madhubala vs. Budhiya. These two decisions were rendered prior to the amendment of Section 151 (sic. 115) CPC in the year 1976. After the amendment in the year 1976, a substantial change has been brought about in Section 151 (sic. 115) and therefore, these two decisions, in my view, cannot be followed.