( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-3-1999 passed in IA No. 37 of 1999 in OS No. 4 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet. The said 1a was tiled under Order 16 Rules 1 and 2 by the revision petitioner herein (defendant) for summoning the Sub-Registrar, Suryapet to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner (defendant ).

( 2 ) THE facts relating to this revision may be stated briefly as follows :the petitioner is the defendant in the suit which was filed for recovery of money on the basis of a registered mortgage deed. It appears one of the attesting witness (PW2) examined on behalf of the plaintiff, during his evidence, deposed that consideration under the document was paid before the Sub-Registrar. But, (he registered document itself does not contain any endorsement that consideration was paid before the Sub-Registrar. The said IA was filed to summon the Sub-Registrar presumably to controvert the evidence of PW2 that consideration was paid before the Sub-Registrar. The learned senior Civil Judge dismissed the petition stating that the Registrar is not a signatory to the document and that Sub-Registrar being a public servant entrusted with the registering the documents cannot be summoned as a witness in respect of any controversy that arises between the parties relating to the document.

( 3 ) THE refusal of the senior Civil Judge to issue summons to the Sub-Registrar for being examined as a witness on behalf of the defendant appears perfectly justified. Considering the fact that the document itself does not contain any endorsement as to the payment of consideration before the Sub-Registrar, it is futile to expect that the Sub-Registrar on being examined as a witness would depose anything contrary to the endorsement.

( 4 ) CONSIDERING these circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage.