HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3743 OF 2011 DATE:16-09-2011 BETWEEN Gudivaka Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner AND Gudivaka Lokanadham …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3743 OF 2011 ORDER: Plaintiff-petitioner herein instituted the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2008 for specific performance of agreement of sale allegedly executed by the defendant-respondent herein on 9.12.2004. On settling the issues, after examination of five witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner herein, after filing the affidavit by the defendant-respondent herein in lieu of chief-examination and while his cross-examination is pending, petitioner herein filed two interlocutory applications i.e. I.A.Nosl.236 and 237 of 2011 to reopen his evidence and to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking some more documents on his behalf. On allowing those applications, D.W.1 was cross-examined and the matter was posted for further examination of witnesses on defendant’s side. At that stage, two more applications were filed by the plaintiff-petitioner herein in I.A.Nos.373 and 374 of 2011 for recalling P.W.1 (plaintiff) and to mark some more documents. Those two applications were also allowed, P.W.1 was recalled, he was further examined and some more documents were marked on his behalf, which necessitated the defendant-respondent herein to file two applications i.e. I.A.Nos.378 and 379 of 2011 for recalling D.W.1 and to mark some more documents on his behalf. Those two applications were also allowed and D.W.1 was recalled and certain documents were marked on his behalf. Then after taking some adjournments, petitioner herein filed I.A.Nos.498 and 499 of 2011 to examine some more witnesses on his behalf on the ground that he could not produce one of the atestors and the scribe of the document-Ex.A.1 as they refused to appear before the court in spite of his request and therefore, it is made essential to examine some more witnesses for the purpose of identifying the signatures of one of the attestors and also scribe of Ex.A.1. On dismissal of those applications, impugned I.A.No.625 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the matter to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to examine the scribe-Dasineni Naga Malleswara Rao and first attestor-Vinukonda Srinivasa Rao, on Exs.A.1 and A.2 as court witnesses and to recall P.W.2 to confront the earlier statement made by him in R.C.C.No.3 of 2005 and chief- examination to declare him as hostile. Along with the impugned I.A., petitioner also filed two other applications i.e. I.A.No.626 of 2011 under Section 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall P.W.2 for the purpose of confronting his earlier statement made by him in R.C.C.No.3 of 2005 and his chief-examination and also to get him declared as hostile; and I.A.No.627 of 2011 under Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. to issue summons to (1) Dasineni Naga Malleswara Rao, the scribe (2) Vinukonda Srinivasa Rao, the first attestor of Exs.A.1 and A.2 and to examine them as court witnesses to prove the controversy regarding Exs.A.1 and A.2. Admittedly, though P.W.2 was examined, he was not declared hostile nor was cross-examined with the permission of the Court when he resiled from the averments made in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief- examination. But the petitioner filed two applications i.e. I.A.Nos.498 and 499 of 2011 to examine some more witnesses on his behalf, who can identify the signatures of the first attestor and the scribe of the document-Ex.A.1 stating that the whereabouts of first attestor are not known. On dismissal of the same, the impugned I.A. along with I.A.Nos.626 and 627 of 2011 was filed. It is also not stated whether any plea has been taken in the written statement and any issue was framed with regard to the statement made by P.W.2 in R.C.C.No.3 of 2005 to confront him with his statement made therein. In the absence of said pleading, any amount of evidence is worthless and the same cannot be allowed to let in by the petitioner. Further the petitioner is not sincere from the beginning to proceed with the suit but he has been filing one application or the other to protract the litigation. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is dismissed at the threshold. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 Tsr.