D NAGALAKSHMI Vs. D ROSAMMA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed calling in question the Order dated 04.07.2018 in I.A.No. 489 of 2018 in O.S.No. 122 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judges Court at Ananthapuramu.

(2.) Petitioner herein is the 7th defendant in the above-said suit filed for partition and separate possession of the respondents plaintiffs 58th share in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs side evidence was closed and on behalf of the defendants, D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. Ex.B1 Gift Deed and Ex.B2 Will executed by the father of the petitioner were marked. In other words, the petitioner is the profounder of the will. D.W.3, alleged to be the attestor of Ex.B2 Will, in the chief-examination, though admitted his signature appended on Exs.B1 and B2, feigned ignorance of the contents thereof, stating that he was not present at the time of their execution and attestation made by the first attestor. Sensing that D.W.3 was speaking against the interests of the petitioner, the learned counsel sought permission of the Court for his cross- examination, which was made extensively. Thereafter, the respondents-plaintiffs counsel also cross-examined D.W.3. His evidence was closed on 30.04.2018. It is at that stage, the petitioner has taken out the instant Application, on 13.06.2018, to recall D.W.3. In the affidavit filed in support thereof, it is stated that by mistake and due to pressure of work, some important questions regarding alteration of documents and the circumstances under which he turned hostile could not be put to D.W.3. Opposing the said Application, the respondents filed the counter. Considering the rival pleas, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the Application, vide Order under revision.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (Civil Appeal Nos. 2795-2796 of 2011).