THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.3750/2009 Dt.13-11-2009 Alluri Ramabradra Raju ..Petitioner V. 1.Alluri Subbaraju and others ..Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.3750/2009 ORAL ORDER No infirmity in exercise of the discretion in dismissing IA No.307/2009 in OS No.13/97 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 2 CPC by the Senior Civil Judge, Razole is discernible warranting interference. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit praying the court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff (i) declaring the plaintiff’s title in respect of plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties and for recovery of the same after ejecting the defendants thereform; (2) directing the defendants 1 to 6 and 12 to account for the profits for the last 3 years with subsequent interest at 12% per annum against the defendants personally and against their movable and immovable properties; (3) to award subsequent mesne profits to be determined on a separate application under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC and to award costs of the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of IA No.307/2009, it is pleaded by the petitioner-plaintiff that he earlier filed IA No.217/2005 to send the document to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of his signature with the admitted signatures. The Honourable Court directed him to produce the registered document and other documents relating to the year 1978. In the affidavit, he also pleaded that he executed a registered sale deed dt. 7-7- 1978 under document No.1228/1978 in favour of Alluru Suryanarayana Raju S/o Bangarraju. When he contacted him for production of the original sale deed, he informed him that it is not available with him. At the time of registration, he signed in the thumb impression register in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Malikipuram and his signature is available with the Sub- Registrar’s Office, Malikipuram, which is a public document. The production of the said register relating to the registered sale deed dt. 7-7- 1978 containing his signature and thump impression is necessary for sending the same to the Handwriting Expert, for which he is ready to pay necessary process charges on issuing summons. D-4 filed a counter while opposing the petition contended that the registered sale deed dt. 7-7-1978 executed by the petitioner-plaintiff in favour of Alluru Suryanarayana Raju was returned by him at the time of registration of sale deed dt. 24-6-2004 relating to the very same proper in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff’s wife, Smt. Ammaji. When the petitioner-plaintiff requested for issuance of summon for production of the register containing his signature and thumb impression relating to the registered sale deed dt. 7-7- 1978 under document No.1128/1978, he addressed a letter to Alluru Suryanarayana Raju to produce the original sale deed dt. 7-7-1978. Alluru Surayanarayana Raju gave a reply stating that the petitioner-plaintiff again purchased the property from him in the name of his wife Smt.Ammaji and took back the original sale deed dt. 7-7-1978 and the same is with him. To substantiate the same, he filed EC. To the counter, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a reply stating that in the sale deed dt. 24-6-2004 executed by Surayanarayana Raju in favour of his wife, there is no recital about delivery of sale deed dt. 7-7-1978 to his wife. A perusal of the recitals in the Xerox copy of sale deed dt. 24-6-2004 would clearly show that for enabling the transfer of property in the name of the purchaser ie., the wife of the petitioner- plaintiff, all the documents, which are relevant for transfer of the property in favour of the purchaser, were handed to the wife of the petitioner-plaintiff. Unless the link document is handed over, it is not possible for transferring the patta in the name of the wife of the petitioner-plaintiff. In view of the same, the contention of the petitioner-plaintiff that the sale deed dt. 7-7-1978 is not available with him and it has not been handed over to his wife by Suryanarayana Raju cannot be accepted. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.13-11-2009 kmr