THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.4607 of 2009 and 1227 of 2010 Date of Order: 29-10-2011 CT in CRP 4607 of 2009 Between: Devagiri Rama Koti Reddy ..Petitioner and Dr.Pallem Peddeswara Rao ..Respondent The Court made the following Common Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4607 of 2009 and 1227 of 2010 Common order: These two revisions arise out of the common order passed in I.A.Nos.218 and 217 of 2009 in O.S.No.950 of 2005, dated 07-09-2009 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada allowing I.A.No.217 of 2009 filed to reopen the evidence of plaintiff for the purpose of questioning his signature on Ex.B1 and I.A.No.218 of 2009 filed to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of questioning his signature as attestor to Ex.B1. Petitioner/plaintiff instituted the above suit against three defendants. The 1st defendant filed the above two IAs. to recall P.W.1 by reopening the suit for the purpose of questioning the signature as attestor to Ex.B1—Will. After Plaintiff—P.W.1 filed his chief affidavit, as the defendant failed to cross- examine the plaintiff, the suit was decreed on 31-12-2007 and the same was restored on his filing I.A.No.6 of 2008 to set aside the ex-parte decree. Even after posting the matter for cross-examination the defendant did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff; therefore, the defendant was again set ex-parte on 03-04-2008 and thereafter, I.A.No.94 of 2008 was filed to set aside the ex- parte order. At last, the defendant chose to cross-examine the plaintiff which stood over from 11-09-2008 to 15-04-2009. After the evidence of P.W.1 is over, P.Ws.2 to 6 were examined. The vendor of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.6 and during the course of her cross-examination she was confronted a document and her signature alone was marked as Ex.B1. The plea of the first defendant, who filed I.As., is that the Will is fabricated; so the question of P.W.6 admitting the signature as attestor on Ex.B1 does not arise. The legatee under the Will who is not a party to the suit nor the first defendant is a party to the suit O.S.No.961/2003 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada filed by defendant No.3 against the vendor of the petitioner and contended that as the said document will be in the custody of legatee under the Will, which has not produced from the proper custody during the cross-examination and the same cannot be admitted. Therefore, the question of confronting P.W.1 with such Will is not tenable. As the plaintiff is not claiming any title under the said document nor plaintiff is relying upon the said document styled as Will which has not been referred to. In the absence of issue regarding the validity or otherwise of the said Will recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination does not arise. The lower court by the impugned order observed that the plea of the first defendant, who filed I.As., is that P.W.6 admitted her signature as an attestor of the Will dated 24-01-2009 and the said Will was also attested by the plaintiff who examined as P.W.1 and requested to allow IAs. and the evidence of P.W.6 that the signature shown to her is that of her and Ex.B1 is the signature identified by the witness to be that of her own. Since it is pleaded by the petitioner in IAs to allow the petition for limited purpose to question the signature of P.W.1 in Ex.B1, who is one of the attestor, and put a question regarding Will either it is genuine or fabricated the court is inclined to allow the petition and accordingly allowed the petition. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in VADIRAJ NAGGAPPA VERNEKAR v SHARADCHANDRA PRABHAKAR GOGATE[1] contends that in the absence of any plea taken by the respondent/defendant, he cannot be permitted to fill up omissions in the evidence as a witness who has already been examined through the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The lower court without assigning any valid reasons simply allowed the petition. On the other hand, Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent contends that when P.W.6 admitted her signature on the Will in the cross-examination, which was marked as Ex.B1 and further which was also attested by the plaintiff as P.W.1, defendant should be permitted in the cross-examination on that aspect. Plaintiff filed the above suit stating that he purchased the property from Annavarapu Saraswarthi w/o Purnachandrarao under a registered sale deed dated 24-09-2004. Originally the property belongs to her brother— Mallisetty Venkateswar Rao who died intestate on 26-03-2002. During the life time of Venkateswarrao, he and his family members have taken the plaint schedule property on lease and cultivating the same even by the death of M.Venkateswarrao. The sister of late M.Venkateswara Rao—Saraswarthi offers to sell the plaint schedule property and given the option to the plaintiff and accordingly he purchased the same. While so, the defendants 1 and 2, who are rich and powerful people, began proclaiming in the village that they have enough strength and influence to occupy the suit land. Hence he filed the above suit. In the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2 they denied the averments of the plaintiff and suit as such is not maintainable. Plaintiff who is a total stranger to the schedule property has no right. The first defendant purchased the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 14-07-2004 from the lawful owner and obtained Pattedar Pass Books and title deeds from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada. When the plaintiff and his vendor tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the properties of the defendants, both the defendants are compelled to file O.S.No.1992 of 2005 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and O.S.No.1991 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada which are coming up for trial. The entire schedule property originally belongs to the deceased—Malisetty Venkateswara; he being bachelor and issueless, one A.Venkateswara Rao alleged to be the distant relative of the deceased contested in O.S.No.961 of 2003 filed by P.Sambasiva Rao for permanent injunction in which the said A.Venkateswara Rao as defendant took a plea that Malisetty Venkateswar Rao executed a Will in their favour dt.24-03-2003 which has been attested by the plaintiff and A.Saraswathi confirming that the schedule property was bequeathed to them by way of Will. When the plaintiff claimed the schedule property said to have been purchased from A.Saraswarthi under a registered sale deed, dated 24-09-2004 suppressing the facts misleading the court. Since from the date of purchase i.e. 14-07-2004 they are in possession and when the plaintiff tried to interfere a case in FIR No.3/2006 was registered against the plaintiff. Therefore, he is not entitled to injunction. In view of the specific plea taken in the written statement that 1st defendant purchased the said property from lawful owner and obtained Pattedar Pass Books and title deeds, transferring the property in their name, and P.W.1 is the attestor of Will deed, the defendants can always establish the factum of P.W.1 is the attestor of Will deed. It is well settled that a person who have a tangible interest in the immovable property attests a particular document about bequeath made by the owner of the property, whether he is estopped from pleading otherwise or not and entitled to discretionary relief of injunction have to be decided by the lower court in the main suit. No doubt, the trial court has not assigned any reasons in allowing IA except reproducing the averments made in I.As. for the purpose for which the first defendant seeks to examine the plaintiff when the plaintiff filed a lengthy counter opposing the petitions. It is the bounden duty of the lower court to assign some reasons in support of its order. The learned Judge cannot expect that appellate court or revisional court will assign reasons in justification of its order. It is a serious lapse on his part. Therefore, Officer should be careful in future and assign reasons for justification of his order. The lower court exercised the discretion permitting the defendants to question the plaintiff to a limited extent by reopening the suit. The said discretion exercised by the lower court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The C.R.Ps. are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 29-10-2011 Note: Office to communicate copy of this order to the concerned officer and also to the Judicial Academy. (bo) Murthy [1] (2009) 4 SCC 410