THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1986 of 2010 (Dated : 29-10-2010) Mrs. T.Aruna W/o T.Srinivasa Rao and others …Petitioners A n d State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1986 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 06.9.2010 passed in M.P.No.189 of 2010 in M.C.No.79 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Judge, Family Court directed the 2nd respondent herein to produce copy of the Will on the next date of hearing, i.e., on 13.9.2010. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4. The petitioners filed petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C being M.P.No.189 of 2010 in M.C.No.79 of 2008 seeking the following relief: - “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to produce the document or other thing, i.e., Will Deed, which was alleged to have been executed by the father of the respondent during his life time, which document is very crucial for proper adjudication of the case in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case” 5. The respondent filed counter resisting the application. 6. It is pleaded in the counter that the Will Deed has been handed over to the purchasers at the time of its execution, and therefore, he is not in a position to produce the same. Para 3 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus:- “ I deny all the adverse allegations made in para-2 & 3 of the Affidavit. I submit that I have never neglected the petitioners. I deny that the Will Deed is in my custody. I submit that in the registered Sale Deed Dt.23-01-2004 it has been clearly mentioned about the Will executed by my father in favour of my mother Smt. T.Lakshmi Devi. I submit that by virtue of the said Will, my mother became the absolute owner of the Cinema Theatre. I submit that the said Cinema Theatre had to be sold due to the loss suffered in the cine business and to clear the debts incurred by us due to the problems created by the Petitioner No.1 and their family members. I submit that at the time of the sale of the cinema theatre, the purchasers insisted for all the link documents including the Will and as such all the documents have been handed over to the said purchasers. I submit that the said Will being unregistered, I will not be able to obtain a certified copy of the said Will. I submit that I have not retained a Xerox copy of the said Will and as such I will not be able to produce the same.” 7. The learned Judge, Family Court having taken note of the pleadings of the parties directed the 2nd respondent herein to produce a copy of the Will. It is now brought to my notice by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that the respondent produced copy of the Will dated 13.9.2010. The respondent has specifically pleaded in the counter in M.P.No.189 of 2010 that the original Will Deed had been handed over to the purchasers. Such is the plea advanced by the respondent; the trial Court is justified in directing the respondent to produce copy of the Will. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 8. The Criminal Revision Case fails and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.29-10-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1986 of 2010 (Dated : 29-10-2010)