Rasool Bee vs Fathima Bee (died) and Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—Petitioner filed O.S. No. 8 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet against the respondents herein for the relief of partition and other ancillary reliefs. The that of the suit commenced and the recording of the evidence was closed. At that stage, the respondents filed I.A. No. 423 of 2002 to reopen the evidence and IA No. 453 of 2002 to summon the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Noothankal as a witness. Both the IAs were allowed and the Mandal Revenue Inspector was examined as DW6. Through him, documents Exs.B-8 to B-13 were marked.

Petitioner wanted to verify the correctness and genuinity of documents Exs.B-8 to B-13. She has submitted an application to the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, to furnish certified copies of the said documents. She was replied through a letter dated 17-10-2002 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, slating that the record pertaining to the said documents is not traceable.

Suspecting the genuinity and authenticity of Exs.B-8 to B-13, she filed IA.No. 569 of 2002 to reopen the evidence and IA No. 570 of 2002 to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet. Through identical, but separate orders dated 25-10-2002, the Trial Court dismissed the IAs. C.R.P. No. 4-509 of 2003 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 569 of 2002, whereas C.R.P. No. 4828 of 2003 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 570 of 2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Exs.B-8 to B-13 are the alleged documents and records from the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, whereas they were got marked through DW6, who was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector at Noothankal. He further submits that once it has emerged that the original record relating to the said documents is not traceable, there is any amount of doubt on the truth or correctness of the evidence of DW6 and it was imperative for the Trial Court to permit the petitioner to examine the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet.

Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had adequately cross-examined DW6 on all aspects and, that being the case, the attempt to reopen the evidence and summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, was nothing but a step to protract the litigation.

As observed earlier, the recording of evidence in the normal course was closed. At the instance of the respondents, the Trial Court reopened the evidence and permitted DW6 to be examined. It is a matter of record that DW6 has been working as Mandal Revenue Inspector at Noothankal and records pertaining to the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, were got marked as Exs.B8 to B13 through him. Apart from the doubtful nature of the source, the letter addressed to the petitioner by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, in response to her application to furnish certified copies of Exs.B-8 to p-13 has, to a larger extent, strengthened the doubt of the petitioner over the authenticity of the documents. The Trial Court had reopened the evidence at the instance of the defendants and permitted DW6 to be examined and Exs.B-8 to Exs.B-13 were marked. Even in the normal course, the plaintiff was entitled to give an opportunity to rebut the evidence so adduced. That apart, the petitioner had made out reasonably good case for reopening of the evidence, by placing the letter received by her from the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, before the Court. This Court finds that the Trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to adduce evidence by examining Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet, particularly when the very existence and authenticity of documents Exs.B-8 to B-13 is pleaded.

Hence, the civil revision petitions are allowed and the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A. Nos. 569 and 570 of 2002 in O.S. No. 8 of 1998 are set aside. Consequently, the said IAs are allowed and the Trial Court is directed to reopen the evidence and issue summons to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet to depose as a witness. Since the suit is of the year 1998, it is directed that necessary steps be taken at the earliest and the suit itself be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.