CRP/1745/2008 of Shaik Mahaboob Vs Shaik Sharif, on 29 December 2010

O r d e r:

This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 12.03.2008,passed by the I Additional Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District,dismissing the application in I.A. No. 689 of 2008 in O.S. No. 254 of2004, filed by the petitioner, praying to summon the service record ofdefendant No.1 from Khairtabad Post Office, Hyderabad.

The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that thepetitioner has filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction basedon Ex. A1-gift deed, and having regard to the fact that defendant No. 1in Ex.A1-gift deed, attested in Urdu, while in his evidence as D.W.1deposed that he is in the habit of signing only in English and attestedEx. A1 in English, it is appropriate that the service record of D.W.1should be called for from Khartabad Post Office, Hyderabad, but theCourt below committed an error in dismissing the application filed bythe petitioner in that regard. Hence, he prayed that the order underrevision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submitted that D.W.1 is not an attester of Ex. A1-gift deed,and he is in the habit of signing only in English. In fact, P.W.1 in hisevidence admitted that Ex. A1-gift deed was written in Urdu, while thegift deed filed before the Court was in English and typed one, and assuch, no purpose would be served in summoning the service record ofdefendant No.1. Hence, he submitted that no interference is warrantedwith the order under revision passed by the Court below refusing tosummon the service record of defendant No.1. He thus prayed for dismissal of the C.R.P.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and thelearned counsel for the respondents-defendants and perused the orderunder revision.

The petitioner-plaintiff, as is evident from the order underrevision, is said to have earlier filed application in I.A. No. 4519 of2007 to call for the service record of D.W.1 from Secunderabad PostOffice, and after dismissal of the same, he filed the present application,to call for he service record of D.W. 1 from Khairtabad Post Office. Except change in Post Office, the request made in the presentapplication is similar to that of he prayer made in the earlierapplication, which was dismissed. The petitioner, it appears, has notquestioned the same. In fact, P.W.1, who is donee, in his evidence, issaid to have stated that Ex. A1-gift deed was scribed by the donor inUrdu, whereas Ex.A1-gift deed filed by P.W.1, is typed in English. Thepetitioner did not produce the original gift deed, which is said to be inUrdu, and filed Ex. A1-gift deed, which is typed in English. In theabsence of the petitioner producing the original of Ex. A1-gft deed,which is said to be in Urdu, the Court below felt that no purpose wouldbe served in summoning the service record of D.W.1, and no exceptioncan be taken thereto, particularly when it is the case of defendant No.1that he did not attest the same and while burden is on the petitioner, toprove the signature of the donor on Ex. A1-gift deed, based on whichhe has put up his claim for declaration of title with respect to the suitschedule property.

Be that as it may, the suit is of the year 2003, and as can beseen from the order under revision, the evidence of the parties wasclosed and at the time when the suit was coming up for arguments, thepetitioner filed the present application. The stage at which the petitioner filed the present application would show that he wants todrag the matter, which practice cannot be permitted.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever tointerfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisoryjurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordinglydismissed. No costs.

Dated: 29[th] December, 2010

IBL

_____________

N.V. RAMANA, J.