THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 14 of 2011 Dated. 21–01-2011 Between: B.A.L.V. Satyavati and others. …Petitioners Vs. Gurram Venkata Surya Prakasa Rao and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 14 of 2011 ORAL ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20-08-2010 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari, rejecting I.A.No. 641 of 2010 in O.S.No. 34 of 1998. The respondents filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 28-07-1997. The revision petitioners-- defendants claimed to have purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deeds in document P.187 dated 29-07-1997 and document No. 3303/1999, from the plaintiffs. In their written statement, the defendants clearly pleaded that all the plaintiffs had executed the registered sale deeds whose cancellation was sought on the ground that the plaintiffs had not executed the registered sale deeds. On these pleadings, it is therefore clear that it is the plaintiffs that will have to discharge the burden of establishing that they did not execute the sale deeds whose cancellation they seek in the suit. However I.A.No. 641 of 2010 is filed on behalf of the revision petitioners – defendants supported by an affidavit of the 1st petitioner herein. Therein it is pleaded that she gave original sale deed to her advocate – Sri Pappu Syamala Sarma, who died and the original is misplaced and could not be traced. As the plaintiffs have the registered sale deeds but are alleging that it is a fabricated document and since her husband also died during the pendency of the suit; and earlier to the registered sale deeds, the plaintiffs had also executed an agreement of sale, it is necessary to summon the Sub-Registrar, Amalapuram with the relevant records of the registered sale deed dated 29-07-1997 (pending document No. 187/1997 Document No. 3303/1999) along with Thumb Impression Register and to summon the Sub-Registrar to give evidence with regard to the events that obtained at the time of registration of the said sale deeds. The Court below rejected the said application recording that since it is for the plaintiffs to establish the invalidity of the sale deed, and since there was no clarity in the pleadings and recitals of the petition as to for what purpose the petitioners intend to summon the witness (Sub-Registrar) and since the document in dispute is a registered one, there are no grounds warranting summoning of the Sub-Registrar, Amalapuram, to prove the registration of the documents. This Court discerns no error in the exercise of discretion by the Court below warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 21-01-2011 Pvks/*