ORDER :

The respondents had filed O.S.No.145 of 2015 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Managalagiri, Guntur District, against the petitioners herein for partition of the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent was married to late Sri V. Narasimha Rao. Respondent No.2 is the daughter of late Sri Narasimha Rao. The petitioner herein is the nephew of late Sri Narasimha Rao, i.e., the father of the petitioner is the brother of late Sri Narasimha Rao.

2. The dispute in the suit relates to an extent of 94 cents of land in D.No.293/C of Mandadam Village of Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District, which has been handed over to the CRDA authorities under the land pooling scheme initiated in that area.

3. The case of the respondents is that the respondents being wife and daughter of late Sri Narasimha Rao are entitled to half share of the said land while the petitioner claims that the 1st respondent and late Sri Narasimha Rao had separated and an informal divorce was also carried out between them under which the 1st respondent gave up all claims over the property of late Sri Narasimha Rao. The petitioner also claims that late Sri Narasimha Rao had executed a Will dated 25.07.1997 under which he left all his property to his mother late Sri Mahalakshmi, who passed away on 13.11.2006 leaving behind the petitioner as the absolute owner of the property. Apart from these contentions, the petitioner herein had also taken the stand that the 1st respondent had filed a statement dated 21.05.2016 before the CRDA authorities stating that she had no differences with her husband and that her husband had passed away on 28.07.1997.

4. The petitioner herein, to demonstrate the above facts, filed I.A.No.1690 of 2018 to summon the Special Deputy Collector, CRDA to produce certified copy of the statement dated 21.05.2016. The same was allowed and the Tahsildar, Mandadam, who appeared on behalf of the Special Deputy Collector, was examined as DW.3 and the certified copy of the statement of the 1st respondent dated 21.05.2016 was marked as Ex.C-1. At the time of marking of the said document, the 1st respondent never raised any question or objection as to the genuineness of Ex.C-1 nor was DW.3 cross-examined as to whether the statement dated 21.05.2016 had been suppressed and a different statement has been put in its place.

5. After the evidence had been concluded in the trial, the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.200 of 2019 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Ex.C-1 along with her signature in the vakalatnama, plaint and chief affidavit, to the Expert of Signatures and Thumb Impressions, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Forensic Laboratory, DGP Office, Managalagiri, Guntur District. This application was dismissed on 26.02.2019 and had become final, as the matter was not agitated further by the 1st respondent.

6. After the dismissal of I.A.No.200 of 2019, the 1st respondent filed three applications bearing I.A.Nos.742, 743 and 744 of 2019 seeking permission to summon Special Deputy Collector (Land Pooling), CRDA, along with Ex.C-1; to reopen the evidence of DW.3 for cross-examination; and to recall the evidence of DW.3 for cross-examination. These applications were dismissed by the trial Court on 03.04.2019. These orders became final as the 1st respondent did not agitate the issues raised in these applications any further.

7. Thereafter, the 1st respondent again filed I.A.No.1064, 1065 and 1087 of 2019 seeking very same reliefs, which had earlier been sought in I.A.Nos.742, 743 and 744 of 2019. These applications were allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 22.07.2019. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioner has filed the above three civil revision petitions.

8. The case of the 1st respondent, in the earlier set of three applications, is that she had given a statement before the CRDA authorities on 21.05.2016 and the same had been written down by one Sri E. Rama Rao. However,