THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1282 of 2010 Dated:24th November, 2010 Between: 1. Smt.Vadde Sathyamma & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND 1. Ranga Raju B.H.P. & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1282 of 2005 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 12.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.70 of 2010 in O.P.No.28 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), at Gadwal, whereby and where under the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 16, Rule 7 r/w. Section 151 CPC. 2. The petitioners are the claimants in O.P.No.28 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal. They filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the death of Kurmakka. They marked inquest report and postmortem report as Exs.A2 and A3. There seems to be some ambiguity in the postmortem report. Therefore, the petitioners moved I.A.No.70 of 2010 under Order 16, Rule 7 r/w. Section 151 CPC to summon the Superintendent, Area Hospital, Gadwal, who conducted postmortem examination. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the examination of the doctor, who conducted postmortem is not necessary, by order dated 12.03.2010. Relevant portion of the order needs to be noted and it is thus: “5. POINT: The petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A2 Inquest report and Ex.A3 P.M.E. report. Ex.A2 inquest report shows that inquest was conducted over the dead body of Vaddegari Kurmakka wife of Narsappa, resident of Vaddegeri, Gadwal on 15.8.06. Whereas, in Ex.A3 P.M.E. report the surname and the name of the husband of Kurmakka are not mentioned and the residence is also mentioned as Krishna. In Ex.A2 inquest report the age of Vadde Kurmakka is mentioned as 70 years, whereas in Ex.A3 P.M.E. report the age is mentioned as 75 years. It is therefore the identity particulars of the deceased Kurmakka in Ex.A2 inquest report and Ex.A3 P.M.E. report are totally different and that it could be said that Ex.A3 P.M.E. report is not at all relating to the dead body of Kurmakka as mentioned in Ex.A2 inquest report. Under these circumstances it is not necessary to issue summons to the Superintendent, Govt. Area Hospital, Gadwal as prayed for.” 3. Notice before admission came to be issued on 12.04.2010. Despite notice being served on the 2nd respondent, none appears on his behalf. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is some ambiguity with regard to the date of conducting postmortem examination on the deadbody and the said ambiguity is required to be clarified by summoning the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination. Learned counsel refers para.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, which reads as hereunder: “3) It is submitted that on 1-7-2006 at 8-15 AM my mother namely Kurmakka and one Jangala Sawarappa both are residents of Ananthapur Vg. while they are sitting at the Ananthapur bus stage at the right side of the road to proceeding to Gadwal town for their personal works at Gadwal town and in the same time one D.C.M. lorry bearing No. AP 11 W 5889 came from the Gadwal side with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the both of the said persons and in the result they sustained factured injuries. My mother sustained grievous injury at left eye, fractured the left leg, left shoulder and at left path and on witnessing the accident our villagers immediately brought the said injured to the Area Hospital, Gadwal for treatment. On knowing the accident from our villagers, we went to Area Hospital and on advice of the doctors my mother was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment. Wherein she was admitted and got the treatment and was surgical operation. The said accident was registered by the SHO P.S. Gadwal rural against the diver of the said D.C.M. lorry in crime No.62/06 under section 337 IPC and issued FIR. However, she died on 15-8-2006. The S.I. of police, Gadwal rural conducted the inquest panchanama over the dead body and then the doctors, area hospital, Gadwal conducted post mortem. But, the doctor by over sight wrongly mentioned in the said post mortem, the date of conducting the postmortem is 10-8-2006 instead of 15-8-2006. So, the real fact about on what date he conducted the postmortem will be disclosed by him with gone through the Hospital records.” 6. It is evident from the above referred para in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.70 of 2010 in O.P.No.28 of 2007, the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the deadbody, is required to be examined to give clarification with regard to the date of conducting postmortem examination. The trial Court without taking into consideration the purpose, for which the postmortem examination doctor is required to be examined, proceeded to dismiss the application. Hence, the order impugned in the revision cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed at the admission stage setting aside the order dated 12.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.70 of 2010 in O.P.No.28 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), at Gadwal. Consequently, I.A.No.70 of 2010 in O.P.No.28 of 2007 stands allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:24th November, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C. R. P. No.1282 of 2010 Dated:24th November, 2010