THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3232 of 2010 (Dated : 15-02-2011) Between: Edamoni Lingaiah and others ..Petitioners A n d U.Shoba W/o Ramesh Reddy and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3232 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 30.4.2010 passed in I.A.No.212 of 2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court at Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by defendants 4 to 13 under Order 18 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. She filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. It is her claim that the she is the daughter of 1st defendant, namely, Kallu Surender Reddy and sister of defendants 2 and 3, namely, Y.Shobha and B.Prathibha. According to her, the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and therefore, she is entitled to 1/4th share. Defendants 4 and 13 contested the suit. They filed I.A.No.212 of 2010 under Order 18 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC seeking the following relief:- “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to summon the Head Master, Z.P.H.S., Yellikal village, Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, in the interest of justice”. 3. The 13th defendant has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is stated in the affidavit that the 1st defendant is not the son of Kallu Lakshmi Kantha Reddy and that he is son of Ranga Reddy. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming that the properties are ancestral properties, is not maintainable. Paragraph (2) of the affidavit need to be noted and it is thus:- “ I submit that it is not true and correct that the said properties were acquired by the grand father of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the father of the defendant No.1 by name Kallu Lakshmikantha Reddy. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant No.1 herein is not the son of Kallu Lakshmi Kantha Reddy, in fact the defendant No.1 is the son of the one Ranga Reddy, to that effect copy of the school certificate issued by Z.P.H.S. Yeelikal village is appended for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court, as such the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1,2 and 3 are not in possession in respect of the said land at any point of time much less in joint possession as alleged by the plaintiff. The Ex.B.1 is the Bonafide & Conduct Certificate showing the defendant No.1 Surender Reddy is the son of Ranga Reddy”. 4. The plaintiffs resisted the application moved by defendants 4 to 13. 5. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties; proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 30.4.2010. The reason assigned by the learned Senior Civil Judge for dismissal of the application is that the petitioners instead of discharging their initial burden by producing better evidence available to prove the facts, they filed the present application to drag on the proceedings. Assailing the said order, the defendants 8, 12 and 13 preferred this revision. 6. Despite notice to the 1st respondent-plaintiff, none appears on her behalf. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned in the revision. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have specifically pleaded in the written statement that the 1st defendant is not the son of Lakshmi Kantha Reddy and instead, he is the son of one Ranga Reddy and that the petitioners placed on record bona fide certificate, which has been exhibited as Ex.B-1, to substantiate the same. A further submission has been made that since Ex.B-1 certificate has been issued by Z.P.H.S, Yellikal village, the Head Master of Z.P.H.S., Yellikal village is required to be summoned to prove the correctness of the entries in Ex.B-1 certificate. 9. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The petitioners pleaded in the written statement that the 1st defendant is not the son of Lakshmi Kantha Reddy and instead, he is son of Ranga Reddy. The petitioners placed on record the bona fide certificate of the 1st defendant and marked it as Ex.B-1. They filed the application to summon the Head Master, Z.P.H.S., Yellikal to prove the contents of Ex.B-1. The reason assigned by the trial Court for dismissal of the application, in my considered view, cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 30.04.2010 passed in I.A.No.212 of 2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. Consequently, I.A.No.212 of 2010 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.15-02-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3232 of 2010 (Dated : 15-02-2011)