THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.4586, 4587 & 4730 of 2013 Between:
Dated 17th July, 2014 Bandari Krishna and others And Smt.Bandari Pushpamma and others …Petitioners …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri B.Sheshu Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These civil revision petitions arise out of common suit. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together.
The petitioners/defendants filed three IAs, namely, (1) I.A.No.849 of 2013 for reopening their evidence; (2) I.A.No.850 of 2013 for receiving the documents enclosed to I.A.No.1143 of 2004 for the purpose of marking further documents through RW.1 and (3) I.A.No.851 of 2013 for recalling RW.1 in I.A.No.1143 of 2004 for the purpose of marking further documents. As all these IAs are dismissed by common order, dated 30.08.2013, by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, these civil revision petitions are filed.
The petitioners suffered a preliminary decree in the above- mentioned suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for partition. One of the suit schedule properties is a cinema theatre which is included in ‘B’ schedule. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed for ascertaining mesne profits in respect of the said property. After recording the evidence of the parties, he has submitted his report in respect of ‘B’ schedule property. Another Advocate Commissioner was appointed for ascertaining mesne profits upto the year 2012 and he has also filed his report on 08.02.2013 by ascertaining mesne profits. The petitioners filed the above-mentioned three IAs with a view to file income tax returns for that purpose subsequent to the year 2006 in respect of the theatre.
One of the grounds on which the lower Court has dismissed these applications is that I.A.No.152 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1 for production of lease agreement, the income tax returns and also statement of bank account standing in the name of the theatre was opposed by the petitioners and that therefore they are not entitled to file these applications at the stage of arguments. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I.A.No.152 of 2008 was filed inter alia for a direction to the petitioners to file the personal income tax returns.
Be that as it may, instead of driving the petitioners to approach this Court by rejecting the applications, the lower Court ought to have allowed these documents to be marked. However, the redeeming feature is that the lower Court agreed to refer the documents filed by the petitioners without marking the same.
Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff has fairly conceded that his client will not have any objection if the documents filed by the petitioners along with I.A.No.849 of 2013 and batch are considered by the lower Court while passing an order on I.A.No.1143 of 2004.
In view of this fair concession, the lower Court is directed to consider the additional documents, if any, filed by the petitioners while disposing of I.A.No.1143 of 2004.
Subject to the above direction, the civil revision petitions stand disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petitions, all pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th July, 2014
VGB