THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2154, 2155 AND 2156 OF 2011 Dated:14-11-2014
Between Shantha Devi
... PETITIONER AND Nadimipalli Rama Rao and another .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2154, 2155 AND 2156 OF 2011 ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.S No. 916 of 2007 in the Court of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit is in progress and the evidence of PW 2 was completed. At that stage, the petitioner filed petitions for reopening the suit, for recalling of PW 2 and for marking certain documents. Initially, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Thereupon, the petitioner filed C.R.P No.5223, 5227 and 5481 of 2008 before this Court. The revisions were allowed and this Court directed that PW 2 shall not be allowed to speak on any other aspect except the one relating to the documents that are sought to be filed. Thereafter, PW 2 was recalled and during the course of his evidence, certain documents were put to him. It is stated that PW 3 was unable to identify his signatures on the documents. The matter has undergone several adjournments. It appears that the evidence of PW 2 was treated as closed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A SR Nos.3551, 3552 and 3553 of 2011 for reopening the matter. for marking certain certified copies of the documents which were left unmarked by PW 2 and to receive affidavit in lieu of further chief examination of PW 2. The trial Court dismissed all the applications through common order dated 09-06-2011. The said order is challenged in these revisions.
Heard Sri A. Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Madhusudhan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
It was already mentioned that the limited context in which PW 2 was permitted to be recalled was to speak about certain documents. That was done and PW 2 failed to identify his signatures on certain documents. The trial Court has taken into account such of the documents that were identified by PW 2 but not others. Faced with this situation, the petitioner filed applications with a prayer to reopen the matter, to receive the documents directly and to permit him to file additional affidavit in lieu of chief examination. All the applications were outside the scope of the order passed by this Court in the batch of C.R.Ps filed earlier. Allowing of such applications would amount to reviewing the order passed in the C.R.Ps mentioned above. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter.
The C.R.Ps are accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 14-11-2014 ks