COMMON ORDER:

These two civil revision petitions are filed challenging the order in I.A.Nos.492 & 493 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 passed by the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati on 28.08.2019.

The petitioners filed I.A.Nos.492 & 493 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 under Section 151 and Order XVIII Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C’) to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence and recall P.W.6 for further examination. I.A.Nos.492 & 493 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 were dismissed of by the trial Court after hearing both the counsel. Aggrieved by the orders, the present civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raising several contentions.

I.A.No.492 of 2019 is filed under Section 151 C.P.C to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence and I.A.No.493 of 2019 is filed for recall of P.W.6 for further examination. The allegations made in the affidavit filed in the interlocutory applications and reasons for claiming such relief are identical. Therefore, it is unnecessary to extract the contentions in both the affidavits and it is suffice to advert to the affidavit filed in one of the petitions.

The petitioners filed O.S.No.81 of 2010 for declaring the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2008 in O.S No.142 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, obtained by defendant No.1 against defendant No.2 in respect of Plaint ‘A’ schedule property as null and void, as it is vitiated by fraud based on forged Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2007 and for consequential injunction restraining defendant No.1 from obtaining registered Sale Deed in pursuance of Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2007 in O.E.P No.32 of 2009 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti and other consequential reliefs.

The suit was posted on 19.08.2019 for pronouncement of judgment. But, on thorough verification of evidence and pleadings, the petitioners intended to examine the attestor and scribe of registered General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale dated 16.04.2008 (Ex.A-2), enabling the petitioners to prove the execution and executants’ signature in the said document to avoid technicalities and multiplicity of proceedings. It is a fact that the executants of Ex.A-2 i.e. defendant No.1 and his mother in the present case, whereabouts are not known since June, 2008. During trial, the petitioners filed a memo in I.A.No.5 of 2019 under Order XI Rule 16 of C.P.C to cause production of original Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2007, by defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 7 in favour of defendant No.1, alleged to have been executed by defendant No.2, but for obvious reasons, they have not produced the same. Subsequently, filed I.A.No.257 of 2019 to send for Ex.A-2 from the file of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti in O.S.No.142 of 2008 and the said petition was dismissed.

It is also contended that, during trial, the petitioners made sincere attempt to secure the presence of defendant No.2 and the attestors by name S. Mastanvali, but failed in their attempt. The attestor S. Mastanvali changed his address and defendant No.2 whereabouts are not known. Though the petitioners have examined P.W.6, one of the attestors of Ex.A-2 due to over sight and inadvertence, did not confront the signatures of defendant No.2 in Ex.A-2 through the sad witness. Therefore, P.W.6 – K.

Sasidhar Reddy is required to be recalled to confront the signature of defendant No.2 on Ex.A-2.

Fortunately, on 10.08.2019, when the petitioners along with family went to Srikalahasti, accidentally they met attestor S. Mastanvali. Immediately, the petitioners informed him about the suit proceedings and requested him to appear before the Court as a witness in the suit on behalf of the petitioners. He expressed his willingness for the same. The scribe of the document has also expressed his willingness to give evidence with regard to execution of Ex.A-2. The said attestor, scribe are very crucial to prove Ex.A-2 document.

It is further contended that, unless the evidence of plaintif