JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The short, but a peculiar and interesting question, which arises for consideration in the present revision is whether an unmarked document in a suit produced by more than one party can be returned only to one of such parties despite the specific objection raised by the other party.
(2.)The facts in nutshell are as follows:
In the suit OS No. 124/91 on the file of II
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, the revision petitioner/ 2nd plaintiff and the 7th respondent/3rd plaintiff in the said suit filed memos through their respective Counsel for returning an unmarked Will dated 25-1-1999 and the Court below had ordered the said Will to be delivered to the 3rd plaintiff after due identification by his Counsel. The 2nd plaintiff, who is none other than the brother of the 3rd plaintiff aggrieved by the impugned docket order dated 26-6-2000 in Memo SR No.3085/2000 in OS No. 124/91 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, had preferred the present Revision.
(3.)Sri S. Ravikanth, Counsel representing the revision petitioner had contended that the Court below had totally erred in directing to handover the Will dated 25-1-1999 to the 7th respondent herein, hereinafter referred to as "3rd plaintiff for the purpose of convenience. The learned Counsel also had contended that the Will was produced by both the Revision Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "2nd plaintiff for the purpose of convenience, and also the 3rd plaintiff together in IA
No. 136/99 under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC. The learned Counsel also had contended that the Court below should have considered that Sri P. S. Ramachandra Murthy alone is the Advocate on record and hence the unmarked document should have been returned to the said Sri P.S. Ramachandra Murthy only on the strength of the memo filed by him. The learned Counsel also further contended that the 3rd plaintiff without obtaining the consent or no-objection from the Advocate on record Sri P.S. Ramachandra Murthy, had engaged another Counsel Sri A. V.S. Prasad for getting return of the document and the Court below had made the impugned order to deliver the unmarked document, to such a Counsel, which is totally illegal and unsustainable. The learned Counsel also had brought to my notice that despite the filing of IA No.470/ 2000 by way of an out of order motion, the 3rd plaintiff had managed the matter otherwise and got return of the said Will and by virtue of the return of such unregistered Will to the 3rd plaintiff, in view of the differences and misunderstandings between the parties, the 2nd plaintiff is put to serious prejudice and his valuable rights relating to the properties are in jeopardy.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.