IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4626 of 2010 Between: E Balraj … Petitioner And: Nalianagula Sunanda & 5 others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4626 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 21.08.2010 in IA No.1493 of 2010 in OS No.166 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, R R District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 1 read with section 151 CPC, seeking issuance of summons to the Village Revenue Officer, Nomula village, to depose as a witness, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit against the respondents for declaration of title, for permanent injunction and for correction of the revenue records in respect of the plaint schedule land. The respondents/defendants filed written statement, contesting the suit. After necessary issues were settled, trial of the suit commenced and as seen from the impugned order, the matter has reached the stage of arguments. The petitioner/plaintiff filed IA No.1493 of 2010 seeking issuance of summons to the Village Revenue Officer, Nomula village, to be examined as a witness. The respondents filed counter, opposing the said application. By impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge, dismissed the application, mainly on the ground that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manchal Mandal was already examined as CW.1 and therefore, the examination of the Village Revenue Officer is not called for. 4 . In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has averred that, if really, the defendants 1 to 3 purchased the land of Ac.8.32 guntas in Sy.No.360 under Ex.B.4 un-registered sale deed dated 19.03.1999, their names ought to have been incorporated in the pahanies after obtaining mutation proceedings. But the defendants 1 to 3 claimed to have obtained ROR proceedings on 01.08.2006 and prior to that the names of the defendants 4 to 6 are found recorded in pahanies for the years 2000-2004 It is further averred that the defendants have not explained as to how the names of the defendants 4 to 6 came to be noted in the pahanies for the above said period. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that the names of the defendants 4 to 6 are appearing in the pahanies for the period from 2000-04, but the defendants 1 to 3 are not aware as to how those entries have been recorded in the pahanies and they are not responsible for making such entries by the revenue authorities. It is precisely for the purpose of ascertaining as to how and under what circumstances, the names of defendants 4 to 6 came to be recorded in the pahanies for the years 2000-2004, the petitioner sought to examine the Village Revenue Officer, Nomula, who is stated to be responsible for making those entries. There cannot be tenable objection for examining the said Village Revenue Officer as a witness in the said circumstances. 5. It is true that the Mandal Revenue Officer was previously summoned and examined as CW.1 in pursuance of the orders in IA No.2267 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Mandal Revenue Officer was examined for a different purpose regarding the issuance of ROR proceedings dated 01.08.2006 in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 and his evidence does not cover the aspect of the entries in the pahanies, which were made by the Village Revenue Officer. As the purpose for which the Village Revenue Officer is sought to be examined is distinct and different from the one for which the Mandal Revenue Officer was previously examined as CW.1, the trial Court ought not to have rejected the application on the ground that the evidence of the Village Revenue Officer is not necessary in view of the examination of the Mandal Revenue Officer as stated in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that earlier, the petitioner filed CRP No.4669 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 02.11.2010 dismissed the said revision, observing that the said application was filed at the stage when the suit was coming for arguments. As seen from the copy of the order in the said revision, it related to dismissal of IA No.2902 of 2009, which was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send the disputed document to the finger print expert. The dismissal of the CRP No.4669 of 2010 does not have for any bearing over the present matter. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. However, having regard to the fact that the matter has already reached the stage of arguments, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 16.09.2011 Note: Issue CC in one week (BO) bss