COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the Common Order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, in I.A.Nos.545, 546 and 547 of 2018 in O.S.No.114 of 2010.

2) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

3) The Petitioners are the Plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the trial Court.

4) The case of the petitioners is that they filed O.S.No.114 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, for declaration of their rights in respect of the suit schedule properties basing on the Will executed by their paternal grand father-Boosi Ramaiah and for consequential recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties free from obstructions of the respondents and for costs. When the matter is posted for arguments, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.545, 546 and 547 of 2018 to reopen their side of evidence and to receive the documents as exhibits to support their contention that the suit schedule property stands on their names and that they are entitled to seek the relief of declaration over the same. But, the trial Court on erroneous consideration of the facts, dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. The trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to prove their case. The trial Court completely lost sight of the fundamental aspect and on surmises and conjectures dismissed the petition as the proceedings issued by the RDO, Gurazala, dated 30.06.2018 to be relied not basing on the weakness of the other side. The trial Court not went on merits and merely on the technicalities of the case, dismissed the petition observing that the recitals of the sale deed altogether contradicts with the description of the suit schedule property describe in the plaint by the petitioners and the relief sought for holds no merit. Therefore, the petitioners prays to allow these Civil Revision Petitions.

6) Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears, the petitioners filed I.A.No.545, 546 and 547 of 2018 to receive the documents with a prayer to reopen their evidence as per the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC when the suit is posted for arguments. The trial Court in its order rightly held relying on the judgment of this Court in A. Rama Mohana Reddy and others v A. Vijaya Kumar and another 1 that after completion of trial proceedings, the availment of Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC by the parties to the suit is not permitted. On earlier occasion, the petitioners got

1 2018 (6) ALT 4

reopened their side of evidence, but they did not produce the documents which they are relying upon. The trial Court in its Order rightly held that the document No.1 i.e., proceedings issued by the R.D.O., Gurazala, dated 30.06.2018, the petitioners are not expected to win the suit basing on the weaknesses of the other side. The trial Court also rightly held that on perusal of the 2nd document i.e., Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 27.02.1947, it altogether contradicts with the description of the suit schedule property describe in the plaint by the petitioners and therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners holds no merits.

7) On careful consideration of the order passed by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that there is no any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the applications of the petitioners, and as such, in our view, no interference is required.

8) Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petition Nos.345 of

2019, 434 and 439 of 2022 are dismissed.

9) There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these petitions shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt. 05