SAJANA GRANITES Vs. SAI ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Both the revisions are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Two applications have been filed before the Trial Court being LA. No. 639/98 and I.A.No. 640/98 in O.S.No. 158/92. The application LA. No. 639/98 was made seeking direction of the Court for i ssuance of summons to Sri K.V. Narsaiah, Junior Assistant in M.R.O. Office to mark the statements of T. Vydehi and A. Malathi. This application was opposed by the otherside who were the plaintiffs in the suit They moved an application being LA. No. 640/98 in which they stated that the Court should not receive the statements of T. Vydehi and A. Malathi. The case which appears to have given rise to this controversy is that the defendant No.2 respondent herein sought to get the statements of four persons on record of the suit which according to him had been made earlier before the Mandal Revenue Officer. One of the statements which is sought to be marked is of T. Vydehi who is the vendor of the plaintiffs in the suit, who according to the respondent-Defendant-2, in a proceeding before the Mandal Revenue Officer, when some No Objection Certificate had to be taken, had stated that she had no interest in the property of which she became a vendor in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit. There, were four such statements. During the proceedings in the suit, when certain applications were considered, all these four statements were marked as exhibits and the Defendant-2/respondent herein sought to prove them by getting the Mandal Revenue Officer as a witness and in fact the Mandal Revenue Officer appeared as a witness. The statements had been called from the M.R-O's Office. When the M.R.O. came at a witness she deposed that she had recorded the statements of Telekepalli Subrahmanyam and Guda Venkata Subrahmanyam and those statements were marked as Exs. B-53 and B-54. She further stated that the statements made by Malathi and Vydehi were recorded by the then Village Assistant Sri K.V. Narsaiah. Because of this revelation by the M.R.O. the party sought that Sri K.V. Narsaiah be brought as a witness and the Court found favour with the request and ordered that Sri K.V. Narsaiah be summoned as a witness which is opposed by the other party. This is the net controversy between the parties.

(3.) This matter was argued in great detail before this Court. Number of judgments were produced. It was argued, whether this evidence sought to be brought on record was evidence under Sections 18, 33 or 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was also argued, whether the document which is sought to be proved before the Court below was a document admissible in evidence or not.