Palikuru Middela Obula Reddy vs Vallepu Santhamma and Others

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.—These two Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order, dated 03.01.2012, passed in I.A. Nos. 1716 and 1715 of 2011 in O.S. No. 72 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, respectively, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge, dismissed both the applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Rules 1 and 10 of Order 16 and Sec. 151 CPC. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S. No. 72 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. Nos. 1715 and 1716 of 2011 for summoning the Tahsildar, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District, and for reopening the suit for his evidence. The respondents/defendants filed counter resisting the applications. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to dismiss both the applications, by a common order, dated 03.01.2012. Hence, these two Civil Revision Petitions by the petitioner/plaintiff.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants.

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff that the petitioner/plaintiff marked the certified copies of the documents and to prove the contents therein, the Tahsildar, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District is required to be examined as a witness along with the original records. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed two applications-one is for re-opening the case and another is for summoning the Tahsildar, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District, to be examined as a witness along with the original records. It is also contended by him that the trial Court dismissed both the applications on the premise that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made any efforts to obtain certified copies of the documents. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner/plaintiff obtained certified copies of the documents and marked them as exhibits and the witness to be summoned is to prove the contents of the certified copies of the documents. Learned counsel took me to the counter filed by the respondents/defendants in I.A. Nos. 1715 and 1716 of 2011, wherein, the respondents/defendants themselves admitted that the certified copies of the documents have already been marked.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the petitioner/plaintiff has already marked the certified copies of the documents and therefore, the original documents are not required to be summoned.

The trial Court dismissed both the applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on the premise that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made any efforts to bring the certified copies of the documents. But, as a matter of fact, the petitioner/plaintiff obtained the certified copies of the documents and marked them as exhibits. The purpose of summoning the witness is to prove the contents of the documents, which are already marked. Therefore, the dismissal of both the applications by the trial Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the common order, dated 03.01.2012, passed in I.A. Nos. 1715 and 1716 of 2011 in O.S. No. 72 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, and consequently, both the I.As., i.e., I.A. No. 1715 and 1716 of 2011 shall stand allowed. No costs.