IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3823 OF 2007 BETWEEN: Sambarao Venkatamma …PETITIONER AND Kalidasu Durgamma and others …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3823 OF 2007 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the orders of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in dismissing I.A.No.349 of 2007 in O.S.No.892 of 2004, dated 19-06- 2007, filed to recall the evidence of respondent No.2 and permit him to cross-examine D.Ws.5 and 6 examined on behalf of defendant No.2. In the suit filed for partition and for separate possession of the schedule property, defendant No.1 filed registered Will and the same was marked. Defendant No.2 filed two un-registered Wills said to have been executed by late Bikshalu and Chandramma. On filing the said Wills, defendant No.1 filed application to send those two Wills to the expert opinion, which is pending. According to the petitioner, the said Wills were forged one. The scribe and attestor of the Will said to have been executed by K.Bikshalu, who were examined as D.Ws.5 and 6 are not the same persons viz., P.Rambabu and V.Bhima Sanakar, who were said to have signed on Ex.B2. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the impugned I.A. to recall D.Ws.5 and 6. The Court below after considering the facts of the case held that when the suit is coming up for arguments the impugned petition is filed to recall DWs.5 & 6; I.A.No.350 of 2007 filed by the petitioner was allowed; and I.A.No.88 of 2007, which was filed by defendant No.1 for sending the documents, have not been traced so far and accordingly, dismissed the I.A. When DWs.5 and 6 were examined in the Court, nowhere it was suggested by the petitioner in the cross-examination that they were not the persons viz., P.Rambabu and V.Bhima Shankar, who attested the un-registered Wills, which were sought to be sent to the handwriting expert. Further according to the counter also they are not able to produce D.Ws.5 and 6 and their present addresses are also not known. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference. If the said witnesses impersonated P.Rambabu and V.Bhima Shankar, it is always open for the petitioner to proceed against them by initiating appropriate criminal action. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J February 2, 2011 Inl/Lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3823 OF 2007 2nd February, 2011 LMV/INL