COMMON ORDER:

Some of the defendants in the suit have filed these two revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the orders passed by learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. C.R.P.No.1549 of 2019 is against order dated 22.04.2019 in I.A.No.80 of 2019 in O.S.No.144 of 2010. C.R.P.No.1582 of 2019 is against order dated 22.04.2019 in I.A.No.81 of 2019 in O.S.No.144 of 2010.

2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.1 and 5 in the suit. The controversy is about learned trial Court initially eschewing the evidence of PW.2 and thereafter setting aside that order.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.144 of 2010 is an incorporated company and it filed the suit as against five defendants. It claimed title over certain immovable properties and found that without any valid rights that property was transacted by way of sale among the defendants. Therefore, the suit made a prayer to declare three registered sale deeds all of which are dated 11.03.2004, which were executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively as void and it also sought certain other reliefs. Both parties placed their pleadings on record and issues were settled and trial commenced. On behalf of the plaintiff, evidence of PW.1 was over. Thereafter, it was for the evidence of second witness. The second witness is Sri Inaganti Chandra Sekhar Rao. His evidence in examination in chief by way of an affidavit was filed before the learned trial Court. It seems the matter was adjourned for cross- examination of PW.2. This PW.2 was not attending the Court to stand up for cross-examination. Learned trial Court granted several adjournments and imposed costs and passed conditional orders and finally, it found that nearly 36 adjournments were granted, but the trial could not progress. It was in those circumstances, it passed an order on 22.01.2018. It recorded that PW.2 was called absent and plaintiff was called absent and there was no representation. Despite the conditional orders on four earlier occasions, nothing was complied with. That the suit is one of the oldest matters pending on its file. In those circumstances, the trial Court recorded that it treated the evidence of PW.2 as ‘nil’ and chief examination affidavit was eschewed. It seems that soon after making this order, the learned counsel for plaintiff appeared before the trial Court and at his request the suit was posted for further evidence on plaintiff’s side. What happened thereafter in the suit is not a matter for consideration in these revisions.

4. It is after receiving such an adverse order, the two applications in I.A.No.80 of 2019 and I.A.No.81 of 2019 were filed under Section 151 C.P.C. before the trial Court. Those applications prayed for reopening of evidence and setting aside the order dated 22.01.2018 under which the evidence of PW.2 was eschewed. These applications were resisted by the defendants in the suit and they filed their elaborate counters. After considering the submissions and material on record, learned trial Court observed that it found no hindrance to set aside the eschewal order dated 22.01.2018 and it accordingly set aside that order. Aggrieved by those orders, defendant Nos.2 to 4 before the trial Court have come up with these revisions.

5. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments.

6. The point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the impugned orders are illegal or irregular requiring interference?

7. Point:

In a trial, each party is entitled to put forth its case by way of pleadings and prove the facts they alleged through various forms of evidence namely oral evidence, documentary evidence and material evidence. It is that evidence which enables the Court to take a decision as to truth or otherwise of facts alleged and reach to its own conclusions. All statements of witnesses during trial is ‘Evidence’ in term