IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1097 of 2013, 808 and 1097 of 2014 BETWEEN Narayana Srimannarayanacharyulu and others AND Narayanam Padmvathi Devi and others ... PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Heard.
2. These revision petitions are by the plaintiffs, wherein their three applications viz., I.A.Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2013 in O.S.No.41 of 2005, filed 1) for reopening of evidence on their behalf, 2) for recalling the evidence of P.W.1, and 3) for receiving additional documents by condoning the delay respectively, were rejected by the court below on the ground that no due diligence is exhibited by the petitioners in making the said applications. Before the trial court, respondent No.10 contested the applications by pointing out that the suit is already posted for arguments and the petitioners have already exhibited as many as 167 documents on their behalf and the present new set of documents are now sought to be produced merely by claiming that the plaintiffs got it recently, but no due diligence is established.
3. The trial court also held that the suit is coming up for arguments since 11.12.2012, as per the docket proceedings, and after taking several adjournments, petitioners have now filed these applications. The trial court was not satisfied with the bona fides of the petitioners in making the said request nor was satisfied of the due diligence.
The discretion exercised by the trial court, therefore, cannot be said to be unjustified or liable for interference, on any ground, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Since the suit before the trial court is of the year 2005, in all probability, the suit itself must have been disposed of by now. Even otherwise, also there are no merits in these revisions.
Accordingly, all the civil revision petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 19, 2014 LMV