THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3162 & 3480 OF 2009 C.R.P.No.3162/2009 BETWEEN: Pulagam Indira Reddy, W/o. Buchi Reddy, Srinagar, Kakinada PETITIONER And 1. Dentuluri Srirama Narasimha Raju, S/o. Appakaraghavaraju, R.R. Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner: Sri P. Sri Raghuram Counsel for Respondents: N.A The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the first defendant, are directed against the order dated 06.04.2009 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in I.A.Nos.361 & 362 of 2009 in O.S.Nos.214 and 215 of 2006 respectively whereby the applications filed by him under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC., to summon Madduri Sri Krishna Paramatma S/o. Venkata Ratnam as a Court witness, were dismissed. The first and second respondents/plaintiffs filed the above suit for permanent injunction contending that they are in possession of the suit property under the agreement of sale executed by Sri Krishna Paramatma on 2.12.2005. The defence put forwarded by the defendants is that they are in possession of the suit schedule property, which is the subject matter of O.S.Nos.160 of 1987 and 32 of 1988, by virtue of agreement of sale executed by Madduri Venkataratnam, who is the father of Krishna Paramatma, and that the said Sri Krishna Paramatma executed several documents in favour of third parties with respect to the schedule property and later cancelled two agreements of sale on 2.12.2005 i.e., on the same day on which the plaintiffs obtained agreement of sale cum power of attorney. The lower Court observed that there is an admission on the part of the first defendant, who was examined as DW.1 during his evidence, as to the cancellation of the previous agreements executed by Sri Kirshna Paramatma and the execution of the suit agreement of sale in favoaur of the plaintiffs and as such the contention of the defendants that Sri Krishna Paramatma should be examined as a Court witness is misconceived, and accordingly dismissed the application. Hence these two revision petitions. A perusal of the written statement would go to show that the plea of the plaintiffs that at the instance of earlier agreement holder Sri Krishna Paramatma they obtained the agreements of sale, was admitted by the defendants. Once Sri Krishna Paramatma executed the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and the same was admitted by the defendants, whether Sri Krishna Paramatma has right to deliver the possession of the property or not is a matter to be decided in the main suit and for that Sri Krishna paramatma need not be examined, since the defendants claim that they purchased the property and were put in possession of the same by the father of Sri Krishna paramatma. In a suit for simple injunction, the Court has to see as to who are in possession of the property as on the date of filing of suit. In view of the same, examination of Sri Krishna Paramatma as Court witness does not arise. In view of the above, both the revision petitions are dismissed. However, it is always open for the defendants to prove their possession under the document executed by the father of Sri Krishna Paramatma by examining appropriate witnesses and producing the documents relating to the said contention. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 28th August, 2009 Js.