COMMON ORDER:

Plaintiffs in the suit filed the above civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. CRP Nos.108, 102 and 103 of 2022 are filed against separate orders, dated 28.11.2022 in I.A.Nos.864, 865 and 866 of 2022 respectively on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

3. Respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.13 of 2012 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and alternatively for the relief of recovery of possession of suit schedule property.

Suit schedule property is Ac.4-00 cents of land in D.No.28/1A. Plaintiffs are claiming title to the property by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 02.02.2007 and, also the rectification deed, dated 16.06.2008 with regard to sub-division number of the suit survey number.

4. Defendants filed written statement and contended inter alia that plaintiffs earlier filed suit in O.S.No.529 of 2008. I.A.No.1145 of 2008 was for temporary injunction and the same was dismissed. Plaintiffs filed CMA No.11 of 2009 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Later plaintiffs filed I.A.No.826 of 2009 for amendment of plaint seeking declaration of title and delivery of possession and the same was allowed. Principal Junior Civil Judge returned the suit on 18.04.2011 to present before appropriate Court. However, without representing the same, plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.13 of 2012.

Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

5. Defendants also filed counter claim seeking cancellation of registered sale deed, dated 02.02.2007 and subsequent rectification deed, dated 16.06.2008 by paying Court Fee under Section 37 of the APCF & SV Act. Counter claim was filed by way of amendment by filing I.A.No.697 of 2017 and after filing of the counter claim, plaintiff No.1 filed written statement.

6. Pending the suit, defendants filed I.A.No.864 of 2022 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the suit; I.A.No.865 of 2022 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall DW1 and I.A.No.866 of 2022 under Order XVIII Rule 1A(3) CPC to receive documents. 7. In the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, it was contended inter alia that to find out the original source of title of ancestors, defendants made extensive search in the Sub- Registrar Office, Kadapa, Urban and obtained certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 21.08.1934 under which D. Usman Khan sold away the suit schedule property in favour of Puttamreddy Chalama Reddy, who is no other than the brother of the grandfather of defendants’ vendor; that sons of Puttamreddy Chalama Reddy and sons of Puttam Rami Reddy partitioned their properties under registered partition deed dated 05.08.1957 under which father of defendants’ vendor got ‘D’ schedule property, as such, those documents are crucial to prove defendants’ case. Hence, the above applications are filed.

8. Plaintiffs filed counter and opposed the application.

9. Trial Court by separate orders, dated 28.11.2022 dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the above respective revisions are filed.

10. While allowing I.A.No.866 of 2022, an application filed to receive documents, trial Court imposed condition to pay Rs.2,000/- to the plaintiffs on or before 02.12.2022. Pursuant to the conditional order passed by the trial Court, defendants paid costs and learned counsel for the plaintiffs’ received costs. Since order, dated 28.11.2022 was complied with suit was reopened and matter stands posted to today i.e. 19.01.2023 for marking of documents. Aggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, the above revisions are filed.

11. Heard both sides.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier defendants filed CRP No.1415 of 2022 against order in I.A.No.689 of 2021 in O.S.No.13 of 2012 CRP No.1414 of 2022 and the same was allowed by order, dated 15.11.2022. He further submits that while allowing the revision, this Court observed that except carrying out the amendment, the defendants shall not be allowed to lead any further evidence either