ORDER :

Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 22.02.2022 in I.A.No.54 of 2022 in O.S.No.961 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.961 of 2015 against the respondents/defendants for permanent injunction.

3. (a) Plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that she is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property; that Mosalikanti people filed SR No.15(1)174/VSP before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli and the said claim was disallowed; that prior to 30.09.1958, plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and its appurtenant property; that during the lifetime of plaintiff’s husband, he filed LGC No.43 of 2000 before the Special Court, wherein commissioner was appointed and it was established that S.No.51/1, Ac.1.86 cents and other lands are in possession of the plaintiff and her husband; that plaintiff constructed asbestos roofing shed in the plaint schedule property and the same was completely damaged due to Hud Hud cyclone and phonographs and CD were submitted; that defendants are nothing to do with the schedule property and defendants with the assistance of their henchmen came to the schedule property on 11.07.2015 and 12.07.2015 and tried to trespass into the schedule property and hence, filed the suit for injunction.

(b) The plaint schedule property is described as 650 square yards of vacant house site in S.No.51/1. Boundaries of the property shown in the plaint are –

4. Defendants filed written statement and are contesting the suit.

5. Pending the suit, when the suit is coming for arguments, I.A.No.54 of 2022 was filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 of CPC to receive document filed along with petition. I.A.No.53 of 2022 was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking documents. I.A.No.52 of 2022 was filed under Order Section 151 of CPC to reopen the suit for the purpose of recalling P.W.1

6. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.54 of 2022, it was contended inter-alia that one M. Satyanarayana, Advocate, who prosecuted the case on behalf of plaintiff died due to ill-health in the year 2019 and later, the matter was entrusted to P.V.N. Reddy Naidu, Advocate; that while verifying the record, plaintiff came to know that D.W.1 was not cross examined by the earlier advocate and the cross examination of D.W.1 was treated as nil; that interlocutory application was filed to recall D.W.1 and the same was allowed and while cross examining D.W.1, photographs of schedule property and other adjacent properties were shown; that D.W.1 admitted some photographs and the same were marked as Exs.A-5 to A-9; that D.W.1 gave evasive replies in respect of some other photographs, which go to the root of the matter and hence, the application is filed to receive the remaining photographs, power bills and license to prove the fact that restaurant is being run in the plaint schedule property and other adjacent property.

7. Counter was filed by respondents opposing the application. It was contended inter-alia that no plea was raised in the plaint regarding running of restaurant by the plaintiff in the schedule property; that plant schedule and other adjacent property as a single compact bit is new version; that no evidence can be received beyond pleadings and absolutely there is no explanation why the plaintiff did not file document along with the plaint or at least at the time of her evidence and eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

8. Trial Court by order dated 22.02.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

9. Heard Sri G. Nikhil, learned counsel repres