ORDER:

The present revision petition is filed challenging the common order dated 24.06.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.82 of 2024 in O.S.No.220 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, seeking permission to file additional written statement by the petitioner/7^th defendant.

2. The petitioner herein is the 7^th defendant in the suit filed for declaration and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.

3. The suit was numbered as O.S.No.220 of 2006. For one reason or the other, the suit went for more than 18 years without there being any finalization. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the 7^th defendant in the suit. At the time of institution of the suit, the petitioner is the minor and he became major in the year 2010. He further submits that, the delay was caused in finalizing the suit due to default on part of the petitioner.

Finally, it was restored on the file in the year 2014.

5. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is minor and became major at a later stage, he found that there is a collusion between the plaintiff as well as the other defendants. As such, he was forced to file I.A.Nos.82 of

2024, seeking permission to file additional written statement.

6. On perusal of the order of the Court below, it is observed that after the examination of P.W-1, the suit was decreed ex-parte on 12.03.2015 and the same was set aside on 09.06.2017. Later, the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 05.10.2023.

7. In para No.15 of the said common order dated 24.06.2024, it is observed as follows:

“No doubt, by the date of settlement of issues, the petitioner was a minor and the petitioner attained majority in the year 2014 i.e., the trial was at the threshold and he availed opportunities of filing fresh written statement and thereafter, additional issues were framed on 29.04.2014. So, before framing additional issues, the petitioner had every opportunity to raise the plea about non-joinder of necessary parties. He slept over for ten years and when the suit is at the fag end, that too, after closure of his evidence, he has come up with a new plea. Therefore, his new plea at the fag end cannot be entertained. If it is entertained, it amounts to almost going back to the pre- trial stage and almost adducing evidence afresh. So, in view of these facts and circumstances, this Court feels that this application merits no consideration and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point if answered.

In the result, this application is dismissed with costs.”

8. It is observed that, the petitioner also filed I.A.Nos.631 and 632 of 2023 for reopening the evidence and recall of PW1 for further cross-examination and finally upon considering the attitude of the petitioner herein, the Court below has rightly dismissed I.A.No.82 of 2024.

9. It is further observed that the petitioner became major at the time of restoration of the suit itself i.e., 14 years back. After closing the evidence of the petitioner, now, the petitioner is seeking permission to file additional written statement. The petitions filed by the petitioner i.e., I.A.Nos.631 and 632 of 2023 for reopening the evidence and recall of PW1 for further cross- examination are also dismissed. All these facts reveal that the only intention of the petitioner in filing the present applications is to drag the matter for further period, even though the suit was finalized and even after completion of 18 years for one reason or the other. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Court below.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

02.12.2024 TTPPS

360 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2256/2024

02.12.2024 TPS