1. These three Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order of dismissal dated 16.03.2012 of the learned XI Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, made in I.A.Nos.214, 215 and 216 of 2012 in O.S.No.559 of 2006 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs; to recall PW1 for the purpose of marking/exhibiting two documents viz., (i) Covering letter dated 11.04.2011 addressed to the first plaintiff by a Public Information Officer/DAG (Administration) and (ii) Form of application for service pension/Family Pension/Retirement Gratuity/Service Gratuity/ Commutation submitted by Smt. Chaya Devi showing her as the wife of Sri S.S.Dass; and to receive the aforementioned two documents on file after according necessary leave and by condoning the delay in filing the said documents.

2. The facts that are necessary for consideration and for arriving at just decision in these civil revision petitions, in brief, are as under:

(a) “The petitioners/plaintiffs (‘plaintiffs’) filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property against the respondents/defendants (‘defendants’). The case of the plaintiffs is that they are also the children of S.S.Dass though they were born to him through Mrs. Chaya Devi; and that the said S.S.Dass also gave birth to all the defendants through one Anna F. However, the defendants denied the plaintiffs’ relationship with their father S.S.Dass and had further contended that the mother of the plaintiffs, Mrs. Chaya Devi is not the wife of S.S.Dass. Thus, in the suit before the trial Court, the relationship of the plaintiffs’ mother-Chaya Devi with S.S.Dass, who is the father of defendants, is in dispute.”

(b) During the course of trial, both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiffs in support of their requests made in the three applications would contend that they had obtained, by having had resort to the provisions under the Right to Information Act, one of the documents viz., Form of application for service pension/Family Pension/Retirement Gratuity/Service Gratuity/ Commutation submitted by Smt. Chaya Devi showing her as the wife of Sri S.S.Dass, and that the said document was furnished to the 1st plaintiff by a designated Government Officer along with a covering letter dated 11.04.2011 and that these two documents which are now being sought to be filed were recently furnished in April, 2011 and that, therefore, they could not be filed earlier and the same are relevant, crucial and necessary for proving the relationship which the plaintiffs’ pleaded and which was denied by the defendants. It is also submitted that the said documents would be helpful to the trial Court in arriving at a just and fair decision in the suit. On the other hand, the defendants having filed their counters in the three applications had reiterated their pleaded defence. The defendants would contend that the petitions are filed at a belated stage only to delay the proceedings and that the applications are liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.’

(c) By the impugned common orders, the trial Court had dismissed the three petitions filed by the plaintiffs solely on the ground of delay. The trial Court observed in the impugned orders that the plaintiffs had these two documents in their possession for the last eleven months prior to filing of the petitions and that the suit underwent 23 adjournments and that the plaintiffs cross examined D.Ws 1 and 2 on different dates and yet the plaintiffs did not assign any reasons for not filing the documents at the earliest opportunity. The trial Court had also held that the suit which was pending for the last six years cannot be reopened. Having been aggrieved of the said orders, the present civil revision petitions are filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides.

4. The facts leading t