THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5413 & 5436 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.6 of 2003 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur against the respondents for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. According to the petitioner, one of the properties to be partitioned is Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Agencies and that an account in respect of that agency is relevant and helpful for adjudication of the dispute. The petitioner filed I.A.No.681 of 2009 with a prayer to summon the Manager, Proddatur Branch of Andhra Bank as a witness and I.A.No.753 of 2009 to direct the said Manager to produce the full particulars of accounts relating to Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Agencies, including the particulars of owners or partners till the end of 2002. The applications were opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the applications, through separate orders, dated 29.09.2009. Hence, these two revisions. Heard Sri J.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the plaint filed in the suit discloses that partition was claimed in respect of 14 items of immovable property, stocks in three Agencies namely, Sree Jayakrishna, Sree Lakshmi Saptagiri and Lakshmi Kanth, vehicles, cash in hand and jewellery. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Agencies does not figure as an item in the suit schedule. It is stated that the said agency was brought into existence at a subsequent stage. Assuming that the business dealings in Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Agencies are also the subject matter of the suit, it is just un-understandable as to how the evidence of a Bank Manager is necessary. From the tenor of the applications filed by the petitioner, it becomes clear that he is undertaking almost a fishing enquiry and that he is not even aware of the basic particulars of the alleged firm, such as, names of the partners, nature of business, much less, entitlement of the various parties. It is always for the persons, who claim share in a property or business undertaking, to prove the existence thereof as well as their entitlement. Evidence can be only in relation to the facts that are pleaded. It can never be permitted to be adduced without reference to an issue or the subject matter of the suit. The trial Court has undertaken relevant discussion and dismissed the applications. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.12.2009 kdl