COMMON ORDER:

The Revision Petition No. 228 of 2020, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 27.12.2019, in I.A.No.1039 of 2019 in O.P.No.1053 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, filed under Section 151 of C.P.C, seeking relief to reopen the matter for the purpose of adducing additional evidence by filing some documents.

The Revision Petition No. 234 of 2020, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 27.12.2019, in I.A.No.1041 of 2019 in O.P.No.1053 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, filed under Order VII, Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C seeking relief to mark the documents as exhibits on behalf of the respondent/ petitioner herein.

The Revision Petition No. 243 of 2020, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 27.12.2019, in I.A.No.1040 of 2019 in O.P.No.1053 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, filed under order XVI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C seeking relief to recall PW-1 for the purpose of adducing additional evidence by filing relevant documents on behalf of the respondent/ petitioner herein.

2. Since the issue involved in the C.R.Ps relating to the suit in trial court, this Court is inclined to dispose of the C.R.Ps by a Common Order to avoid conflict findings with each other.

3. The 1st respondent is the petitioner before the court below has filed a petition seeking maintenance on her behalf and also on behalf of her minor son. In the said petition, she filed Interlocutory Applications as referred above, which are allowed. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revisions have been filed.

4. Heard Mr.T.S.N.Murthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and none appears for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that after completion of evidence on either sides and also 2nd respondent filed written arguments, the 1st respondent/ petitioner have filed these applications to fill up the lacunae in the evidence and also in the main O.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that counter has been filed, but the court below without looking into the same has allowed the applications without valid reasons. Such order is allowed not only it causes prejudice to the petitioner, but also it leads to miscarriage of justice and as such prayed to dismiss the same.

6. Perused the record.

7. The 1st respondent/ petitioner herein contended before the trial court that the documents filed along with the application are very much essential to substantiate her case. Further she has not explained how the said documents are relevant. If the said documents are marked, the petitioner herein has every right to cross examine the witness with regard to admissibility and relevancy of the said documents. Since at the stage of advancing arguments, the trial court in the interest of justice given an opportunity to the 1st respondent/ petitioner for fair disposal of the O.P was pleased to allow the application subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility and no prejudice or injustice will be caused to that extent.

8. However, this Court finds that the respective parties of the claim have every right to place on record the documentary evidence in support of their contentions is permissible in the eye of law before concluding the proceedings. The court below rightly allowed the applications by giving cogent reasons. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders and there are no valid and justifiable grounds raised or urged before this court warranting the interference of this Court, as such, this C.R.Ps are liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the C.R.Ps are dismissed by a common order.

There shall be no order as to costs. Since O.P is filed seeking maintenance, which is filed in the year 2008, the trial court is