THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 1745 of 2008 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 12.03.2008, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 689 of 2008 in O.S. No. 254 of 2004, filed by the petitioner, praying to summon the service record of defendant No.1 from Khairtabad Post Office, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction based on Ex. A1-gift deed, and having regard to the fact that defendant No. 1 in Ex.A1-gift deed, attested in Urdu, while in his evidence as D.W.1 deposed that he is in the habit of signing only in English and attested Ex. A1 in English, it is appropriate that the service record of D.W.1 should be called for from Khartabad Post Office, Hyderabad, but the Court below committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner in that regard. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents- defendants submitted that D.W.1 is not an attester of Ex. A1-gift deed, and he is in the habit of signing only in English. In fact, P.W.1 in his evidence admitted that Ex. A1-gift deed was written in Urdu, while the gift deed filed before the Court was in English and typed one, and as such, no purpose would be served in summoning the service record of defendant No.1. Hence, he submitted that no interference is warranted with the order under revision passed by the Court below refusing to summon the service record of defendant No.1. He thus prayed for dismissal of the C.R.P. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants and perused the order under revision. The petitioner-plaintiff, as is evident from the order under revision, is said to have earlier filed application in I.A. No. 4519 of 2007 to call for the service record of D.W.1 from Secunderabad Post Office, and after dismissal of the same, he filed the present application, to call for he service record of D.W. 1 from Khairtabad Post Office. Except change in Post Office, the request made in the present application is similar to that of he prayer made in the earlier application, which was dismissed. The petitioner, it appears, has not questioned the same. In fact, P.W.1, who is donee, in his evidence, is said to have stated that Ex. A1-gift deed was scribed by the donor in Urdu, whereas Ex.A1-gift deed filed by P.W.1, is typed in English. The petitioner did not produce the original gift deed, which is said to be in Urdu, and filed Ex. A1-gift deed, which is typed in English. In the absence of the petitioner producing the original of Ex. A1-gft deed, which is said to be in Urdu, the Court below felt that no purpose would be served in summoning the service record of D.W.1, and no exception can be taken thereto, particularly when it is the case of defendant No.1 that he did not attest the same and while burden is on the petitioner, to prove the signature of the donor on Ex. A1-gift deed, based on which he has put up his claim for declaration of title with respect to the suit schedule property. Be that as it may, the suit is of the year 2003, and as can be seen from the order under revision, the evidence of the parties was closed and at the time when the suit was coming up for arguments, the petitioner filed the present application. The stage at which the petitioner filed the present application would show that he wants to drag the matter, which practice cannot be permitted. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 29th December, 2010 IBL