PADAMATI LAKSHMI Vs. SURPANI VYKUNTA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the civil revision petitions, the petitioner is the 9th defendant in O. S. No. 41 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, tadepalligudem. She is also the plaintiff in o. S. No. 7 of 2003 pending before the same court, which she filed for permanent injunction. Both the suits are being tried together recording evidence in O. S. No. 41 of 2001. O. S. No. 41 of 2001 is a partition suit filed by the first respondent herein (hereafter called, the plaintiff) against respondents 2 to 24 and the petitioner. Petitioner herein (hereafter called, the 9th defendant), and respondents 1 to 8 are children of China Gangaraju, and respondents 10 to 24 are subsequent alienees. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a family settlement in 1983 with proper physical division of the properties, and that she is in possession of her respective share, but the plaintiff and others are interfering. She, therefore, filed O. S. No. 384 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, which was later transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, as o. S. No. 7 of 2003. It is her case that after she filed the injunction suit, the plaintiff filed o. S. No. 41 of 2001, which is coming for trial. During the trial, the petitioner filed la. No. 1316 of 2007 to send for No. 3 adangal for Faslies 1406 to 1408 in respect of R. S. Nos. 345/1, 349, 350/2, 390, 371/3, 126/2, 116 of Kommugudem Village from the file of CMA No. 47 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the n Additional District judge, Eluru, for the purpose of marking the same through the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Tadepalligudem, as exhibits. The said application was rejected by the trial court as delayed application. Against the said order dated 1. 11. 2007, CRP No. 5304 of 2007 is filed.

(2.) THE 9th defendant also filed LA. No. 1242 of 2007 praying the Court to send the partition list dated 23/5/1983 to the District registrar of Stamps and Registration, Eluru, to impound and levy stamp duty and penalty and duly certify by way of endorsement. The said application was also dismissed by the trial Court on 25/10/2007 on the ground that at a belated stage when the matter is under trial, the application cannot be accepted. Against this order, CRP No. 5408 of 2007 is filed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the first respondent, this Court accepts the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the documents, whiph the 9th defendant wants to summon from the court of the n Additional District Judge, eluru, have already been filed along with la. No. 1113 of 2003 in O. S. No. 7 of 2003, and indeed, they are marked, and therefore, there cannot be any difficulty for the trial court to send for the documents, so that they can be marked by the MRO, tadepalligudem, who is to be summoned by the 9th defendant.