APHC010187242017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3783/2017 Between: Gundubogula Narasimha Swamy ...PETITIONER AND Gundubogula Narasimah Swamy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. ORDER:- 1. The present revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 15.12.2012 passed in IA.No.4242 of 2012 in OS No.8 of 2002, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Razole, East Godavari District. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the cause in the revision petition does not survive. 3. The submissions are placed on record. 4. In view of the same, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the instant revision and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. 5. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 28.01.2025 DR 30 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.3783 of 2017 Date 28.01.2025 DR The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The present revision is filed questioning the order dated 04.04.2014 passed in IA No.6 of 2013 in OS No.49 of 2006, on the file of Senior civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District. The respondents/plaintiff is filed a suit for specific performance based on agreement of sale dt.19.11.2005 said to have been executed by one Sri Jakka Subbaiah Sastry, the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner herein. It is the case of the 2nd plaintiff that the 1st plaintiff initially entered into the agreement of sale with Sri Jakka Subbaiah Sastry and paid part consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- on the date of agreement of sale. Later on the 1st plaintiff prevailing on the 2nd plaintiff xxx relief over the property and the said relinquishment made by the 1st plaintiff is by the 2nd plaintiff and it is reduce in the liability by virtue of agreement of sale relinquishment dt.26.07.2011 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. It is also case of the 2nd plaintiff that he had paid an amount of Rs upon execution of the relinquishment deed. In view of the same, the 2nd plaintiff filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC seeking permission of the Trial Court to prosecute the suit, he alone entitled to context the suit. It is further stated that the 1st plaintiff was passed away. Therefore the legal her need not be brought on record. The said application was resisted by the petitioner/defendants and a counter affidavit was filed with the alleged relinquish deed 26.11.2011 as forged one and the same cannot be looked into. It is further contended that alleged relinquish deed is not admissible in evidence. Upon hearing parties, the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff which is impugned in the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The only for which rise of the petitioner is that while allowing application by the Trial court at para 12 made observation stated with the relinquished agreement is admissible in evidence. This observation was objected by the petitioner on the ground that the relinquished agreement dt.26.11.2011 is not sufficiently stamped and the same cannot be admissible in evidence. Therefore, the observation made by the Trial court is not correct and illegal. While deciding the application filed by the 2nd plaintiff/respondent there was no counter for the Trial court to discuss about the matter more particularly about the relinquishment deed 26.11.2011. Nevertheless the said observation made by the Trial Court on relinquishment of the subsequent paragraphs of the impugned order. The Trial Court also observed that the merits of the case cannot be looked into, while considering the present application these two observations run contrary to each other. In the above back drop the observation of the Trial Court made in para 12 of the impugned with regard to the admissible of relinquishment deed 26.11.2011 is set aside and the petitioner/defendant can take proper steps/objections during the time of marking of the documentary in the Trial Court. In so far as allowing the application filed by the 2nd plaintiff/respondent herein is concerned, there is no illegality and inequality in allowing the said application. In view of the above matter the revision petition is disposed of with the above observations.