THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. No. 5976 & 5977 of 2010 Dated. 04–03-2011 C.R.P. No. 5976 of 2010 Between: Pamu Narasamma …Petitioner Vs. Peyyala Anantalakshmi and others. …Respondents C.R.P. No. 5977 of 2010 Between: Pamu Narasamma …Petitioner Vs. Peyyala Anantalakshmi and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5976 & 5977 of 2010 ORAL COMMON ORDER: The two revisions are by the 4th defendant in O.S.No.196 of 2005 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, directed against two orders both dated 26-08-2010 allowing I.A.Nos. 636 and 640 of 2010 in the said suit. I.A.No. 636 of 2010 is filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent herein under Order-VII Rule 14 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) praying the Court to receive the documents filed by the plaintiff and mark the same as exhibits on behalf of the plaintiff; and I.A.No. 640 of 2010 under Order XVIII Rule 3(A) and Section 151 CPC to grant permission to the plaintiff to examine herself as P.W.2 to substantiate the evidence in the suit. These applications were allowed by the Court below. The 4th defendant in the suit has come under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking revision of both these orders. While allowing I.A.No. 636 of 2010 the Court below held that the plaintiff had pleaded in support of that application that she had purchased the plaint schedule property from one Pamu Subba Rao under a registered possessory sale agreement dated 04-02-1986 for a sum of Rs. 5,000-00 and has been cultivating the same personally and that the defendants are interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, as pleaded in the plaint; that after execution of the sale agreement dated 04-02-1986 Pamu Subba Rao had delivered original patta and pattadar passbook to her. However these documents were misplaced at the time of filing of the suit and were traced out recently and therefore they are sought to be marked now, though were not mentioned in the plaint. The Court below satisfied with the reasons stated by the plaintiff in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No. 636 of 2010, allowed the application. In I.A.No. 640 of 2010 the plaintiff pleaded that as she had fallen sick and was not in a position to undertake journeys involved in litigation, she executed a power of attorney in favour of one Pamu Kondal Rao, s/o Venkat Reddy and Saraswathi; that the GPA holder was examined at the first instance but now that she is well and to mark the documents delivered to her by Pamu Subba Rao who sold the property to her, she seeks the leave of the Court to tender evidence as P.W.2 and mark certain documents. The Court below was satisfied that sufficient cause was shown by the plaintiff for her inability to tender evidence earlier and her ability now to depose in her favour in the suit and allowed the application – I.A.No. 640 of 2010. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions had strenuously contended that the suit itself is not maintainable as the land is an assigned land and no conveyance of the land could have been made in favour of the plaintiff; and that as the very entitlement of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property was prohibited by law i.e., the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the applications seeking filing of additional documents and for leave to examine the plaintiff as P.W.2 was misconceived. This is a contention that is stated to be rejected. Whether the suit is maintainable or otherwise is an issue that is to be decided by the Court below at the appropriate stage either as a preliminary issue if the Court is satisfied or while considering the adjudication of the suit on its merits. The contention as to the maintainability has no nexus with the validity of the orders passed by the Court below in a valid exercise of its discretion. On the aforesaid analysis this Court finds no error in the exercise of discretion by the Court below warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 04-03-2011 Pvks/*