COMMON ORDER:

As the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

2. The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant and the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.205 of 2015, which was filed for grant of permanent injunction before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District (for short “the Court below”). The petitioner herein has filed the I.A.Nos.298 and 299 of 2021 under Order VIII Rule 1 (A) and Section 151 CPC before the Court below to reopen the suit to adduce further evidence and to receive the documents filed along with affidavit and mark the same on behalf of the defendants. The same were dismissed by the Court below vide separate orders dated 27.10.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions came to be filed.

3. Heard Sri B. Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner being the 1st defendant she adduced evidence but however during trial she could not file certain documents as they are mixed up with some other documents. As the evidence on behalf of the defendants was closed, the petitioner filed the present applications to re-open the suit for the purpose of adducing further evidence and to receive the documents and mark them on their behalf in the suit. But the Court below has erroneously passed the impugned orders without giving any opportunity to the petitioner though she has shown sufficient reasons. Therefore, prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner did not mention any reason for non- filing of documents at the time of filing written statement or her evidence and after completion of the entire evidence she came up with this petition. He further submits that the petitioner did not file the documents which she wants to bring on record for the reason that they are mixed with some other records. Except saying so, the petitioner did not appraise any cogent and relevant reason for not producing the documents at the relevant point of time. Therefore, learned counsel submits that, as there is no merit in the instant petitions the same may be dismissed.

6. On perusing the entire material available on record this Court observed that the suit pertains to the year 2015 and the defendants side evidence was closed in the year 2019 itself. Subsequently on a petition filed by the other defendants, the matter was re-opened and documents were marked on their behalf. It is also observed that at the time of examination, the petitioner did not produce any material before the court below. Moreover, when the petition filed for marking documents, at that stage also, the petitioner has not shown sufficient reasons except saying those documents were merged with some other documents. If at all, the documents, which had been highly essential and material to establish the case of the petitioner, every care would have been taken at the earlier instance to bring them on record, for which, the petitioner failed to do so.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner though filed petition to reopen the suit and the petition to receive documents and mark them as exhibits, she did not file any petition to recall the witness for marking of those documents, in case of receiving them on record, which also shows that the prime intention behind fling these petitions are only to protract the proceedings. Therefore, the Court below has rightly concluded and dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner for which warrants no interreference by this Court. Hence, both the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applic