IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4044 OF 2010 DATED:08.09.2010 Between: Vanke Narsinga Rao and another … Petitioners And Varikela Aruna Bai and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4044 OF 2010 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dt.09-08-2010 in I.A. No.491 of 2010 in O.S. No.231 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, the plaintiffs filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners herein filed the suit for cancellation of registered gift deed. Subsequently, the suit was decreed ex parte on 01-4-2004. First respondent herein filed I.A. No.80 of 2005 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. When the enquiry is pending in I.A. No.80 of 2005, the petitioners wanted to file certain certified copies of the depositions of the first defendant and her husband in O.S.No.1046 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, and filed I.A. No.491 of 2010 to receive the documents, with delay. The Court below dismissed I.A.No.491 of 2010 on the ground that there was no proper explanation for the delay in filing such documents. In any event, it is to be noticed that the documents which are sought to be filed by the petitioners are depositions of living persons and as such they are not admissible in evidence in view Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If the petitioners want to examine any of the deponents in O.S.No.1046 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, they may summon such deponents, and when the deponents are living persons, petitioners cannot file the said documents to exhibit them as evidence, which is impermissible under law. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the petitioners to summon any of the deponents in O.S. No.1046 of 2006 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, so as to defend their case in I.A. No.80 of 2005 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 08.09.2010 bnr Note: C.C. in three days. (B.O) bnr