COMMON ORDER:

Plaintiffs in O.S.No.189 of 2011 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda filed these four Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Respondent herein is the defendant in the suit.

3. The suit before the learned trial Court is for declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for vacant possession of the same and for removal of the structures thereon and for eviction of the defendant from the said property and for costs and such other reliefs. Necessary issues were settled. Suit went for trial. On behalf of plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 5 were examined. On behalf of defendant, DWs.1 to 3 were examined. In contesting the claim of the plaintiffs, the defendant relied on two Wills. One such Will was Ex.B.2. This Will was said to have been executed by Smt. Yarlagadda Naga Ratnamma on 10.01.2000. The executant allegedly subscribed her signature on this Will. Plaintiffs in the suit have been contesting that the said Will was not executed by that woman and the said Will was a forged and fabricated document. Plaintiffs’ further contention is that Smt. Yarlagadda Naga Ratnamma, who allegedly executed the Will, was illiterate and could not have subscribed her signature on the Will and that she was a marks woman and that the thumb mark and signature attributed to her on the disputed Will did not belong to her. It was in this factual backdrop, after conclusion of evidence on both sides and while the suit was coming up for hearing arguments on both sides, certain applications were moved by the plaintiffs and all those applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court and that forced the plaintiffs to come to this Court.

4. The revision petitioners who are plaintiffs before the trial Court had filed I.A.No.873 of 2017 in O.S.No.189 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C. seeking for leave of the Court and permit them to file certain documents. The proposed documents are pension papers of Smt. Yarlagadda Naga Ratnamma concerning February, 2003. With a reasoned order on contest, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application. Impugning that order dated 25.07.2017, C.R.P.No.3864 of 2017 is filed.

5. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.871 of 2017 in O.S.No.189 of 2011 under Section 151 C.P.C. praying the Court to reopen the evidence so as to enable them to mark the above referred documents. By an order dated 25.07.2017 the learned trial Court dismissed it. Assailing that C.R.P.No.4613 of 2017 is filed.

6. Revision petitioners/plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.872 of 2017 in O.S.No.189 of 2011 under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking to recall PW.1 so that they would exhibit the above referred documents. By an order dated 25.07.2017 the learned trial Court dismissed that petition. Assailing it, C.R.P.No.4642 of

2017 is filed.

7. Since the suit was coming up for arguments and since the above revision petitions were filed where an interim stay was granted for certain time, the learned trial Court on observing that further orders of stay were not produced before it, it was directing the parties to get ready for arguments in the suit. In challenge to that docket order dated 23.04.2018, the plaintiffs preferred C.R.P.No.2773 of 2018.

8. Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners and Sri M.Venkata Ramana, the learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted arguments.

9. Point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the impugned orders occasioned injustice requiring interference under Article

227 of the Constitution of India?”

POINT:

10. From the facts that are narrated in the earlier paragraphs of this order, the question was whether Smt. Yarlagadda Naga Ratnamma was a literate or illiterate and whether she was subscribing her signatures or not and whether she had always subscribed her thumb impression and never subscribed any signature. According to the respondent/defendant, by the time of the disputed W