BODUGU GURAVAIAH Vs. VIPPARAPALLI SAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed, challenging the order in I.A No.302 of 2019 in O.S No.63 of 2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, dated 10.07.2019, whereby the petitioners/defendants filed a petition under Order XVI Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code (for short C.P.C), to summon one Choppa Gangi Reddy, who worked as Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasthi, to appear as court witness, to give evidence in the suit, to prove the execution of registered sale deeds which are marked as Exs.A25 and A26 in the main suit, alleging that Choppa Gangi Reddy, worked as Sub-Registrar at Srikalahasthi, when the originals of Exs.A25 and A26 were registered, by him as Sub-Registrar.

(2.) The executant of the registered sale deeds was one Vipparapalli Subbamma and the witnesses identified her in the presence of Sub-Registrar, hence, the Sub-Registrar alone is competent person to identify the persons who executed the documents. It is further contended that subsequently, the said Choppa Gangi Reddy, in the capacity of Sub-Registrar, lodged a report with the police against the witnesses who identified the person styling herself as Vipparapalli Subbamma, executant of the document by impersonation and to disprove the same, it is necessary to summon Choppa Gangi Reddy, who worked as Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasthi, as a court witness and permit them to cross examine him to elicit the truth.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff filed counter, denying the material allegations inter alia contending that the petitioners/defendants themselves were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 in the suit and they relied on Exs.B12, A25 and A26, as such summoning the above witness to prove the execution of the document does not arise. It is also contended that D.W.1 and D.W.8 acted as attesting witnesses, they also accepted the attestation of documents, while giving evidence in the main suit.