THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2752 of 2010 ORDER: Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein filed O.S.No.36 of 2007 in the Family Court-cum-District & Sessions Judge, Guntur for the relief of cancellation of the decree in O.S.No.190 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. That suit was filed by the father of respondent No.1 against the father of respondent Nos.2 to 5, by name Chiranjeevi Reddy and the father of petitioners herein for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 18.12.2006. The trial of O.S.No.36 of 2007 commenced. The evidence on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 was completed. Thereafter, defendant No.1 in the suit, i.e. respondent No.1 herein adduced his evidence. Petitioner No.1 also filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. At that stage, respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.210 of 2010 with a prayer to eschew the affidavit filed by petitioner No.1 in lieu of chief-examination. It was pleaded that the petitioners are supporting the case of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and they ought to have adduced evidence before the contesting party i.e. respondent No.1 commenced his evidence. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 07.04.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri K.Jaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Vijaya Kiran, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The suit filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 is the one for cancellation of decree in O.S.No.190 of 2003. The father of petitioners and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 figured as defendants in that suit. Naturally there was a common grievance against them for respondent No.1 herein. In the present suit, the evidence adduced on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 was recorded and after that, the contesting party i.e. respondent No.1 adduced evidence. At that stage, the petitioners came forward to adduce their evidence. On an application submitted by respondent No.1, the trial Court examined the entire record. It was found that the petitioners have taken the plea that the agreement, dated 18.12.1986, is forged one. This naturally supports the plea of respondent Nos.2 to 5 i.e. plaintiffs. Therefore, they ought to have adduced evidence before the contesting defendant i.e. respondent No.1 commenced his evidence. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.07.2010 kdl