HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.914 OF 2010 DATE:12-03-2010 BETWEEN: Appikonda Veerabhadra Rao …Petitioner AND Korukonda Venkata Ramana & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.914 OF 2010 ORDER: The plaintiff is in revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the orders of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 9.2.2010 dismissing I.A.No.47 of 2010 in O.S.No.796 of 2007 filed for re-casting the issues. Admittedly, the plaintiff-petitioner herein instituted the above suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in which, the defendants filed written statement stating that the plaintiff never approached them on 18.8.2004 and on 19.8.2004 to the Sub- Registrar’s Office and not paid the sale consideration to them and thus denied the receipt of the amount. In view of the rival claims, the lower Court framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract in pursuance of the prepared sale deed, dated 18.8.2004 by defendants 1 to 3? 2. Whether defendant No.4 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prepared sale deed, dated 18.8.2004? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the prepared sale deed, dated 18.8.2004? 4. To what relief?” Now, the impugned I.A. is filed to re-cast the issue Nos.1 and 4 as under: “1. Whether the defendants 1 to 3 did not receive the sale consideration of Rs.59,000/-?” 4. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance as prayed for?” The lower Court rightly observed that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he went to the Sub-Registrar’s Office when the defendants 1 to 3 prepared the sale deed, dated 18.8.2004 and paid the sale consideration to them. When the defendants 1 to 3 specifically denied the payment of sale consideration, it does not mean that it is for them to establish that they did not receive the sale consideration. Similarly, the issue No.4 cannot be re-casted as sought for by the plaintiff, since the burden cannot be shifted to the defendants. The impugned order so passed by the lower Court in dismissing the I.A.No.47 of 2010 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity to be corrected by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The Revision lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 12, 2010 Tsr.