HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos. 554 & 941 of 2010 Date: June 28, 2010 Between:
M. Sarangapani, S/o. Sharabaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: business, R/o.H.No.2-6-1181, NGOs’ Colony Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal District … Petitioner And K. Satyakala, W/o.I. Prakasham, Aged about 55 years, Occ: employee, C/o.Kakatiya University, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, and six others … Respondents Order:
As the issue involved in these revision petitions is interrelated and they arise out of the same suit, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
These civil revision petitions arise out of orders dated 18-11-2009 passed in I.A.Nos.2079 and 2080 of 2009 and I.A.Nos.2078 and 2081 of 2009 respectively in O.S.No.1174 of 2000, by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
Petitioner is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit. The suit was filed for perpetual injunction orders. When the suit, which is of the year 2000, came up for arguments after closure of evidence, the aforesaid interlocutory applications were filed, seeking to reopen the matter for further evidence and to recall P.W.1 for marking certain documents. By order dated 18-11- 2009, the court below rejected I.A.Nos.2079 and 2080 of 2009 stating that there is no reference to such documents in the pleadings. Similarly, I.A.Nos.2078 and 2081 of 2009 were also dismissed stating that as I.A.Nos.2079 of 2080 of 2009 are dismissed, the question of recalling P.W.1 for marking the documents mentioned therein, does not arise.
It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents, i.e. tax receipts, which are sought to be filed, are subsequent to the filing of the suit.
As much as the suit is for injunction simplicitor, the only issue which is to be examined is with regard to possession of the parties as on the date of filing of the suit. It is to be noted that the documents, which are sought to be marked, are subsequent to the filing of the suit, and thus, they will not have any bearing on the issue to be resolved in the suit. Furthermore, no reasons have been assigned for not filing the documents for such a long period.
Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below, which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The civil revision petitions are without merits and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 28, 2010 MRR