COMMON ORDER:

Aggrieved by the orders dated 26.06.2013 in I.A.No.421/2013, 422/2013 & 423/2013 in O.S.No.220/2010 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, the instant C.R.Ps. are filed.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.220/2010 seeking the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the respondents/defendants in respect of the plaint schedule terrace building. While so, during the course of arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.311, 312 & 313 of 2013 to reopen the suit and recall PW1 for further evidence and to receive the documents to be produced by the plaintiff. In those petitions, it appears the respondents/defendants did not file counter and hence, the trial Court allowed those petitions subject to petitioner paying costs of Rs.200/- and his filing additional affidavit and attending Court for cross- examination without fail on 22.04.2013 failing which the petitions shall stand dismissed. As the petitioner/plaintiff did not comply with the aforesaid condition, the trial Court dismissed those three petitions. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.421, 422 & 423 of 2013 under Order 19 Rule 9 CPC seeking to restore the petitions. The trial Court dismissed those petitions by its order dated

26.06.2013.

Hence these three C.R.Ps.

4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.R.N. Prashanth and Sri V.R.S. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. As can be seen, the trial Court dismissed the petitions on two main observations. Firstly on the observation that the suit came up for arguments and the petitioner/plaintiff after having submitted written arguments consisting of 24 pages, took time for submitting reply arguments and started filing petitions one after another and this attitude shows that he was interested to keep the suit pending for some more period. Secondly on the ground that the petitioner lacks bona fides as, if he was really present in Court on 22.04.2013, he ought to have paid costs and filed his additional affidavit and subjected himself to cross-examination. He did not do so. Further, if he really attended the Court on 22.04.2013 (after dismissal of his petitions), he ought to have filed the restoration petitions either on 22.04.2013 itself or on subsequent date. However, the petitioner filed such petitions only on

25.04.2013. Hence petitions do not merit consideration.

6. Severely refuting the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the observation of the trial Court that the plaintiff having filed written arguments started thereafter filing petitions after petitions only to drag on the proceedings, is quite objectionable. He being the plaintiff, there was no point in dragging on the suit. Learned counsel would submit that the three petitions for recall, reopen and to receive documents were filed under exigent circumstances as the documents sought to be marked were important to establish his case. Having allowed those petitions, it is not just on the part of the trial Court to comment that the petitions were filed one after another to delay the suit. Nextly, regarding the observation of the trial Court that the petitioner did not attend Court on 22.04.2013 and had he attended, he would have filed the restoration petitions on the same day or on the subsequent day, learned counsel argued that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the averments in the affidavit filed along with the restoration petitions. Taking the Court through the affidavit, learned counsel sought to argue that the petitioner is an aged person of about 60 years and he is a resident of Guntur and the suit is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. In those circumstances, after being informed by his counsel, the petitioner sent the costs to be paid in Court on 22.04.2013 and informed his counsel to deposit the costs and request the