IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4765 of 2010 and 4767 of 2010 Between: P.L. Benjimen .. Petitioner AND P.L. David & 9 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4765 of 2010 and 4767 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The two civil revision petitions arise against interlocutory orders passed in the same suit between the same parties and are, hence, being disposed of by this common order. 2. I.A.No.497 of 2010 in O.S.No.303 of 2007, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, is a petition filed for reopening the suit for further evidence on behalf of the defendant, while I.A.No.498 of 2010 therein is a petition filed to summon the Superintendent of the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, to produce the Acquittance Register of the salaries pertaining to 1968 and 1973. 3. The third defendant claimed that in the suit for partition and separate possession coming up for arguments after closing the evidence of both parties, summoning the proposed witness became necessary in view of marking of Exs.B-4 and B-5 obtained from the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, subject to proof due to the objection by the opposite side. The third defendant claimed that he has to appropriately prove the documents for that reason and, hence, filed the two interlocutory applications. 4. The request was resisted on the ground that the applications were intended to drag on the proceedings and there was no need to examine any other records for the purpose of comparing the signature of the deceased with the admitted signatures, as there were other admitted signatures already on record. 5. The trial Court, in the impugned order, felt that the petitions were intended to drag on the proceedings and after the party has produced the documents as primary evidence or secondary evidence, it is not open to him to call for the entire registers relating to the documents which is not in question. The trial Court felt that when admitted signatures of the person concerned are available on record, there is no reason to summon the proposed witness to cause production of the registers. The trial Court consequently dismissed both the applications. 6. The aggrieved third defendant is before this Court contending that summoning of the original documents was very much essential to prove his case, the denial of an opportunity for which would cause irreparable damage to his rights. As the Will filed by the third defendant was disputed by the other parties and as Ex.B-4 was marked subject to objection concerning the proof, the original records ought to be summoned and proved so as to enable proof of signatures on the Will. The third defendant, therefore, desired both the orders to be reversed. 7. Sri M. Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the contesting respondents are heard. 8. It is seen from the copy of the deposition of the third defendant as D.W.4 that Ex.B-4 was marked subject to objection raised by the counsel for the plaintiff and further subject to proof and the objection was that the documents were not certified. The trial Court having permitted the production of Ex.B-4 into evidence subject to the objection concerning proof, in the normal circumstances would have to permit the party to answer such objection and provide such proof as required by law by taking recourse to appropriate steps. It is for that purpose, the third defendant requested for summoning the Superintendent of the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, to produce the Acquittance Register pertaining to 1968 and 1973 said to be containing the signatures of the executant of the Will relied on by the third defendant in the suit. Preventing such evidence to come on record will undoubtedly cause prejudice to the third defendant placing him in a position which may not be available for reversal by any means. It is true that the evidence for both parties was closed and the matter was posted for arguments and the delay causes inconvenience both to the opposite parties as well as the Court in smooth dispensation of justice. However, the objection to the marking of Ex.B-4 was taken on 14.07.2010, while the applications were filed on 24.08.2010, the intervening period being not reflective of any abnormal delay. Under the circumstances, the request of the revision petitioner can be permitted subject to appropriate terms. 9. Therefore, the orders, dated 06.10.2010, in I.A.Nos.497 and 498 of 2010 in O.S.No.303 of 2007, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, are set aside and the said interlocutory applications will be allowed on deposit of costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the credit of the District Legal Services Authority, Mahabubnagar, within one week from the date of receipt of these orders by the trial Court and in default, the applications shall stand dismissed. In the event of the applications being allowed, the expenses for summoning the documents or the witness shall be borne by the third defendant irrespective of the result of the suit. The Civil Revision Petitions are ordered, accordingly, without costs. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19th August, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4765 of 2010 and 4767 of 2010 Date: 19th August, 2011 KL