THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4269 of 2011 Date:28th November, 2011 Between: Yadhala Raja Rao S/o.Late Chalamaiah & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND Gadla Narayana Swamy S/o.Venkata Ramappa .....Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4269 of 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 04.07.2011, passed in I.A.No.918 of 2010 in O.S.No.204 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 32, Rule 4 CPC. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.204 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.918 of 2010 in O.S.No.204 of 2006 to send the 3rd defendant for further examination by the doctors at SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, about her mental ability. The said application has been resisted by the defendants on the ground that earlier they filed I.A.No.339 of 2009 in O.S.No.204 of 2006 and the said application came to be allowed by the Court and pursuant to the orders passed in the said application, the 3rd defendant came to be examined by the doctors, RIMS, Kadapa, and therefore, there is no need of sending the 3rd defendant once again to SVIMS hospital, Tirupati. Learned Senior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to allow the application, by order, dated 04.07.2011. Relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “This Court has perused the entire case records and found that the respondents 1 to 3 are challenging the maintainability of the suit itself on the ground that the suit agreement is a forged and fabricated document and also on the ground that 3rd respondent is a lunatic and therefore, the contract is unenforceable against her. At the same time, there is no doubt that a certificate was given by a doctor at RIMS Hospital confirming the lunacy of 3rd respondent. The question is as to whether this application can be allowed directing 3rd respondent to some other doctor at SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi. When the petitioner doubts the certificate issued by the doctor of RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, what affects the case of respondents 1 and 2 to allow the prayer made by the petitioner. Allowing this application would not affect the case of the respondents in any angle. If really 3rd respondent is a lunacy, the same result will be made by even the doctor at SVIMS, Tirupathi.” The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 17.10.2011. The respondent/plaintiff entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already filed I.A.No.339 of 2009 to send the 3rd defendant to the concerned department in RIMS, Kadapa and the said application came to be allowed and consequently, the doctors at RIMS, Kadapa, examined the 3rd defendant and issued a certificate and therefore, the question of sending the 3rd defendant once again to the same hospital or to some other hospital does not arise. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order impugned in the revision. 7. It is not in dispute that the 3rd petitioner herein, who is the 3rd defendant in the suit, was once sent to the RIMS Hospital, Kadapa pursuant to the orders passed in I.A.No.339 of 2009. The certificate issued by the doctor with regard to the mental condition of the 3rd petitioner herein is available in the record. Unless the certificate issued by the doctors, who earlier examined the 3rd petitioner, is found to be incorrect, question of sending the 3rd petitioner once again to another hospital for the purpose of same examination, in my considered view, cannot be undertaken. 8. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 04.07.2011, passed in I.A.No.918 of 2010 in O.S.No.204 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, and consequently, I.A.No.918 of 2010 stands dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:28th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4269 of 2011 Date:28th November, 2011