p. 1 APHC010694052022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2827/2022 Between: 1.DASARI SURESH CHANDRA MUKHARJI, S/O. LATE RAMBABU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.20/83, GANDHINAGAR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.DASARI JASWANTH,, S/O SURESH CHANDRA MUKHARJI, AGED 14 YEARS, STUDENT, BEING MINOR REP. BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER DASARI DAMAYANTHI, R/O.D.NO.20/83, GANDHINAGAR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.D SIVA PARVATHI, (DIED). 2.DASARI MOHAN LAL KALYAN KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMBABU, AGED 49 YEARS, JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.20/83, GANDHINAGAR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.GNADHAM RAJANI, W/O SIVA SATYANARAYANA, AGED 51 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the order dated 07-12-2022 in I.A.No.370/2022 in O.S.No.40/2015 on the file of the Court of the X Addl. District Judge, Krishna, at. Machilipatnam consequently allow I.A.370/2022 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 40/2015 on the file of the Court of the X Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam pending disposal of main Revision Petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to extend the Interim Order dated 02-01-2023 in C.R.P.No.2827/2022 pending disposal of main Revision Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY The Court made the following: p. 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2827 of 2022 ORDER : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.370 of 2022 in O.S.No.40 of 2015, whereby the learned X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners filed the said application seeking a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, to produce an authenticated copy of the registered gift deed dated 06.08.2012, bearing document No.6339/2012 said to have been executed by Dasari Ramababu in favour of the 2nd petitioner herein. The petitioners also sought a further direction to produce the authenticated copy of the thumb impression register containing the thumb impression of the said Dasari Ramababu and to depose with regard to the same before the Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had mortgaged the property with a bank and, at the time of filing I.A. No.370 of 2022, the original document was in the custody of the said bank. It is further submitted that the petitioners have since secured the original gift deed and are willing to produce the same before the Court. Insofar as the second limb of the prayer in the interlocutory application is concerned, namely, the production of the authenticated copy of the thumb impression register pertaining to the father of the first petitioner, it p. 3 is submitted that appropriate directions may be issued to the concerned Sub-Registrar to produce the same, since the executant of the gift deed and the attestors thereto are no more. It is contended that such material is necessary for the petitioners to establish the authenticity of the gift deed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as the petitioners themselves have now stated before this Court that the original gift deed is in their possession and that they are willing to produce the same before the trial Court. It is therefore contended that it is open to the petitioners to take appropriate steps by filing a suitable application before the Court below. 4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 5. The learned Judge, in the impugned order, observed that the petitioners had not assigned any reasons for condoning the delay in filing the list of witnesses and documents for the purpose of issuing summons to the proposed witnesses. It was further observed that there was no necessity to issue summons to public officers, in the absence of the petitioners making out sufficient grounds to establish that their presence was required for adjudication of the suit. The learned Judge also held that, for proving the execution and attestation of the gift deed, the evidence of the Sub-Registrar, Machilipatnam, was not necessary. On p. 4 the above reasoning, the learned Judge opined that the presence of the Sub-Registrar was not required for deciding the issues involved and accordingly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. 6. Insofar as the changed circumstances are concerned, namely, that the petitioners are now in possession of the original document, the same may be produced before the trial Court, which shall consider it along with the other evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in I.A.No.370 of 2022 in O.S.No.40 of 2015, leaving it open to the parties to file appropriate documents for consideration by the learned trial Court. 8. Considering the submission that the suit was filed in the year 2015, the learned X Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, shall endeavour to dispose off the suit in OS.No.40 of 2015 on merits within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of the order 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed off. No costs. . As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM p. 5 116 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2827 OF 2022 Dated 24.03.2026 KGM