HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No:246 & 288 OF 2010 Dated: 3.2.2010 Between: M/s Avinash Constructions and another ..Petitioners And Sagiraju Ramakrishnam Raju .. Respondent. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No:246 & 288 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Challenging the common order, dated 17.11.2009 in I.A.No.2478 of 2009 & I.A.No.2479 of 2009 in O.S.No.53 of 2004, passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the present civil revision petitions have been preferred. Since both the revision petitions arise from out of a common order and the parties are common, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners herein are defendants 1 and 2 and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The defendants filed the above applications seeking to reopen the case for recalling P.W.1 for cross-examination regarding the genuineness of the GPA filed by the plaintiff, on the ground that D.W.2- Advocate-Notary deposed in his evidence that one M. Naresh, Advocate came to him and produced the original GPA signed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not appear before him. While opposing the above applications, the GPA holder of the plaintiff contended before the Court below that the plaintiff was in India at the time of execution of GPA in her favour. She also filed a copy of passport of the plaintiff, containing the stamp of immigration authority at Hyderabad Airport, before the Court below. The Court below dismissed the above applications. It was observed by the Court below that in view of admission of D.W.2 in his cross-examination that normally, parties concerned will execute the documents in his presence and he attests the same and that there are four signatures on the document in question and he cannot identify anyone of them as he has no acquaintance with them, further cross- examination of P.W.1 by recalling him does not arise. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The petitioners herein filed the above applications to reopen the matter and to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination regarding the genuineness of the GPA filed by the plaintiff, on the basis of the evidence of D.W.2 in his chief examination. But the cross-examination of D.W.2 makes it clear that normally, the parties concerned would execute the documents in his presence and he attests the same and that there are four signatures on the document in question and he cannot identify anyone of them, as he has no acquaintance with them. If the evidence of D.W.2 is taken as a whole on this aspect, it can be presumed that the document in question purporting to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, was so executed and authenticated. In this view of the matter, recalling of P.W.1 for further cross-examination regarding genuineness of GPA does not arise as rightly observed by the Court below. Under the above circumstances, I feel that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Hence, both the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date:3rd February, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No:246 & 288 OF 2010 03.02.2010