CRP/2179/2010 of Pinninti Parvathamma, Vs Potunuru Musalayya on 31 December 2010

COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of single suit. Therefore they are being heard and disposed of together.

The parties are common to all these Civil Revision Petitions.

I have heard Sri K.Venkata Rao, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for therespondents.

The petitioner has filed the suit O.S.No.85/2007 for specificperformance of agreement of sale against the respondents. Aftercompletion of the pleadings, the parties have gone to trial whereinthe petitioner/plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and examined oneof the witnesses to the suit agreement as PW-2. Evidently, PW-2has not deposed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. After completionof the trial and commencement of the arguments, the petitioner hasfiled I.A.No.721/2009 to recall PW-2 and declare him as hostilewitness to enable the petitioner to cross-examine him. The petitioneralso filed two other I.As. – I.A.No.722/2009 for summoning andexamining the attesting witnesses as court witnesses andI.A.No.723/2009 for examining defendant No.1 as a court witness. These three I.As. having been dismissed, the pf filed these revisionpetitions.

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the court below has committed error in dismissing all the threeI.As.

Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents hassought to support the orders of the court below.

Having carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the court below are not liable forinterference. As regards I.A.No.721/2009, the procedure ofsummoning and declaring the witnesses as hostile is alien to theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908. The procedure prescribed under theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the criminal trials,cannot be imported into civil disputes. Therefore, the trial court hasrightly dismissed the said I.A.

With regard to I.A.No.722/2009, the same was filed at a fartoo belated stage after completion of trial and commencement of thearguments. Apart from that, the witnesses who were sought to besummoned by the petitioner are none other than the attestingwitnesses to his own document. If the petitioner seeks tosubstantiate his case by adducing their evidence, it is for him tosecure their presence and examine them.

As far as I.A.No.723/2009 is concerned, defendant No.2 filedwritten statement on behalf of himself and also on behalf ofdefendant No.1 apart from examining himself as DW-1. Therefore,the necessity of defendant No.1 being summoned as a court witnesswould not arise.

On a careful consideration of the facts of the case and thereasons given by the court below for rejecting all these three I.As., Iam of the view that the petitioner has miserably failed to make outany case for interference of this court in exercise of its revisionaljurisdiction.

The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

__________________________