THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 740 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 13.04.2011 passed in I.A. No. 457 of 2011 in I.P. No. 21 of 2009 by the Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, at Rajahmundry, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, praying to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer to speak about the assignment of house properties bearing Door Nos. 48-8-10 and 72-31-1. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the order under appeal. As can be seen from the order under appeal, the appellant filed the insolvency petition before the Court below, praying to adjudicate her as insolvent. The contesting respondents have taken a stand that the appellant owns two house properties bearing Door Nos. 48-8-10 and 72-31-1 and she intentionally did not show the said properties in the schedule of the insolvency petition, and when they put a suggestion to that effect to the appellant in her cross-examination, she denied the same. It is the case of the appellant that those two houses were assigned in favour of some others and to prove the same, she filed the present I.A. praying the Court to summon the M.R.O. concerned to speak about the assignment of the said house properties. Since the appellant denied the suggestion put by the contesting respondents that she owns those house properties, the burden is on the respondents to prove their contention that the said house properties stand in the name of the appellant. The Court below, having taken note of the same, held that there was no necessity to summon the MRO at that stage and if the respondents produce any proof to substantiate their contention, then depending on the necessity, the appellant may request the Court to summon the M.R.O., and accordingly dismissed the petition filed by the appellant, by the order under appeal, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be found fault with. We are of the considered opinion that the order under appeal does not warrant any interference by this Court and the civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. At this stage, the counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the observations made by the Court below, the appellant may be permitted to request the Court below to summon the M.R.O., as and when necessary. The appellant is at liberty to do so. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 16th August 2011 IBL