THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5314 OF 2011 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5315 OF 2011 DATED: 02.12.2011 In C.R.P. No.5314 of 2011 : Between: R. Ramulu .. Petitioner/Plaintiff And 1. Mohd. Kareem Khan and 2 others. … Respondents/Defendants In C.R.P. No.5315 of 2011 : Between: R. Ramulu .. Petitioner/Plaintiff And 1. Mohd. Kareem Khan and 2 others. … Respondents/Defendants THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5314 OF 2011 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5315 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: O.S.No.16 of 2001 and O.S.No.24 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, R.R. District are ﬁled by one R. Ramulu S/o. R. Krishnaiah, aged about 35 years, resident of Kodangal Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, against the respondents 1 & 2 herein seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed, dated 29.04.1998, relating to the suit schedule properties is not binding on the plaintiﬀ and that the sale is liable to be cancelled. The aﬃdavits of the plaintiﬀ in lieu of chief- examination as P.W.1 were ﬁled in both the suits and thereafter P.W.1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants 1 & 2. While the matter was coming up for further cross- examination of P.W.1, complaints dated 12.2.2009 were ﬁled by the plaintiﬀ before the learned Junior Civil Judge alleging that his younger brother by name Venkataiah had impersonated him and gave evidence as P.W.1. Pursuant thereto, the Court below by separate orders dated 26.02.2009 made in O.S.No.16 of 2001 and O.S.No.24 of 2001 eschewed the evidence of P.W.1 and directed initiation of criminal proceedings against Venkataiah. The said orders dated 26.2.2009 made in O.S.No.16 of 2001 and O.S.No.24 of 2001 are assailed in these two Revision Petitions claiming that the revision petitioner is the plaintiﬀ in O.S.No.16 of 2001 and O.S.No.24 of 2001 and he signed the plaint and ﬁled the aﬃdavits in lieu of chief-examination and he was also cross-examined on 4.12.2008 by the counsel for the defendants 1 & 2. It is alleged that the complaints on the basis of which the orders under Revision came to be passed were made by a third party to the proceedings (who is arrayed as respondent No.3 in these two revision petitions) and that the Court below passed the orders under Revision assuming erroneously that the person who gave the complaint was the real plaintiﬀ and that the evidence was given as P.W.1 by one Venkataiah impersonating the plaintiff. It is contended that the orders under Revision which were admittedly passed without notice to the revision petitioner who is the real plaintiﬀ are arbitrary and illegal and therefore the same are liable to be set aside on that ground alone. The 3rd respondent ﬁled his counter-aﬃdavits in both the Revision petitions contending that on receipt of the complaint the learned Junior Civil Judge directed appearance of both the complainant/plaintiﬀ and the person who gave evidence as P.W.1 impersonating the plaintiff and accordingly both were present in the chamber of the learned judge on 26.02.2009. It is claimed that the revision petitioner had admitted before the learned Junior Civil Judge that he was R. Venkataiah and not R. Ramulu. On the basis of the said statement, the Court below passed the orders under Revision eschewing the evidence of P.W.1. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the contention of the 3rd respondent that the learned Junior Civil Judge had recorded the statement of both the complainant as well as the other person Venkataiah has been categorically denied by the revision petitioner. It is also relevant to note that nothing is available on record to show that before passing the orders under Revision, notice was issued to anybody else other than the person from whom the complaint was received. In fact, the order under Revision itself shows that the statement of only the person who made the complaint was recorded on 26.02.2009. As could be seen, it is a peculiar case where both the revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent before this Court claim to be the plaintiﬀ-R.Ramulu, S/o R.Krishnaiah. Their signatures on the respective vakalats also appear to be similar. Both of them are alleging that the other person had given the evidence as P.W.1 impersonating the plaintiﬀ. Such a dispute cannot be decided without summoning both the parties and without recording their statements as well as the statements of their counsel who represented the plaintiff at the time of presentation of the suit and the counsel who was present at the time of recording the evidence of P.W.1. The learned Junior Civil Judge does not appear to have understood the seriousness of the issue and the orders under Revision were apparently passed merely on the basis of the statement of one of the parties to the dispute. The signatures of the revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent in their aﬃdavits and vakalaths ﬁled before this Court appear to be similar. Obviously, one of them committed forgery which amounts to playing fraud on the Court. The conduct of the party, who had attempted to mislead the Court by committing fraud and forgery is undoubtedly a serious issue warranting stringent action including prosecution. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders under Revision are hereby set aside and both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Court below to pass appropriate orders afresh after recording the statements of the Revision petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent in these revision petitions. The Court below shall also record the statements of all the counsel who appeared for the plaintiﬀ from the initiation of proceedings. It is also open to the Court below to record the statements of any other persons and receive the documentary evidence, if any, and then a ﬁnding shall be recorded as to the identity of the plaintiﬀ who actually signed and presented the plaint. A speciﬁc ﬁnding as to the correctness of the allegation in the complaint dated 12.02.2009 that one Venkataiah had impersonated the plaintiﬀ and gave evidence as P.W.1 shall also be recorded by the Court below. The Court below shall take all necessary steps such as obtaining the thumb impressions on the respective statements apart from aﬃxing the photographs so as to ensure the proper identity of the persons giving the statements. The Revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent before this Court shall appear before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, R.R. District on 15.12.2011 along with their respective counsel and the Court below shall record their statements on that day itself without fail. If for any reason, the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur is not available on 15.12.2011, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy shall make alternative arrangements to see that the directions in this order are complied with. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. The registry shall communicate a copy of this order to both the District & Sessions Judge and the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur forthwith together with the Xerox copies of the vakalats and the aﬃdavits ﬁled by the revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent in these revision petitions. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Dt. 02.12.2011 Note:- Furnish C.C. by tomorrow (03.12.2011) (B/O) GBS/KLP